1 INTRODUCTION TO TORTS • Principles of Tort Law à compensation, deterrence, justice, fairness • Objectives of Tort Law à punitive, compensatory, deterrence, appeasement, corrective justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, educational role, ombudsman role • Restitutio ad Integrum – by shifting money from the defendant to the plaintiff because that is all tort law can do – you’re not ever really making them whole • Tort Effectiveness – If we can deter this from happening to future victims • Purpose of tort law – adjust the losses and afford compensation for injuries sustained by one person as a result of the conduct of another NEGLIGENCE INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE Negligence is concerned with carelessness. Three elements of negligence: 1) Duty of Care 2) Breach of Duty 3) Causation (damage flowing from breach) DUTY OF CARE DUTY GENERALLY LECTURE NOTES – ANNS COOPER TEST (UNIFIED) (NOVEL DUTY) • After Cooper, the general test to establish a new duty was as follows (do not need to go through this analysis if the duty has already been recognized by the courts) o Stage One: § Was there reasonably foreseeable harm? If yes, § Was there a proximate relationship between the parties (may include “policy” factors applying to relationship between parties, proximity in fact: a relationship where a reasonable person would foresee the harm caused to the plaintiff); if yes o Stage Two: § Are there any residual policy matters negating or limiting the duty (policy factors outside the relationship between the parties) (Cooper v Hobart)
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
INTRODUCTIONTOTORTS
• PrinciplesofTortLawàcompensation,deterrence,justice,fairness• ObjectivesofTortLawàpunitive,compensatory,deterrence,appeasement,correctivejustice,
therapeuticjurisprudence,educationalrole,ombudsmanrole
• RestitutioadIntegrum–byshiftingmoneyfromthedefendanttotheplaintiffbecausethatisalltortlawcando–you’renoteverreallymakingthemwhole
• TortEffectiveness–Ifwecandeterthisfromhappeningtofuturevictims• Purposeoftortlaw–adjustthelossesandaffordcompensationforinjuriessustainedbyoneperson
asaresultoftheconductofanother
NEGLIGENCE
INTRODUCTIONTONEGLIGENCE
Negligenceisconcernedwithcarelessness.
Threeelementsofnegligence:
1) DutyofCare
2) BreachofDuty
3) Causation(damageflowingfrombreach)
DUTYOFCARE
DUTYGENERALLY
LECTURENOTES–ANNSCOOPERTEST(UNIFIED)(NOVELDUTY)
• AfterCooper,thegeneraltesttoestablishanewdutywasasfollows(donotneedtogothroughthisanalysisifthedutyhasalreadybeenrecognizedbythecourts)
o StageOne:
§ Wastherereasonablyforeseeableharm?Ifyes,§ Wasthereaproximaterelationshipbetweentheparties(mayinclude“policy”factors
applyingtorelationshipbetweenparties,proximityinfact:arelationshipwhereareasonablepersonwouldforeseetheharmcausedtotheplaintiff);ifyes
o StageTwo:
§ Arethereanyresidualpolicymattersnegatingorlimitingtheduty(policyfactorsoutsidetherelationshipbetweentheparties)(CoopervHobart)
2
DONOGHUEV.STEVENSON
Facts• Pwasdrinkingabeeratarestaurant;Disthemanufacturer;beerhadasnailatthebottom;Plgotsick
afterdrinking;doestheDoweadutytotheconsumerofthebeverage?Analysis/Rule
• Youmustnotinjureyourneighbouràwhoisyourneighbour?àpersonswhoaresocloselyaffectedbymyactthatIoughttoreasonablyhavethemincontemplationasbeingaffectedwhenIamdirectingmymindtotheactoromissioninquestion
• Categoriesofnegligenceareneverclosed
HOMEOFFICEV.DORSETYACHT
Facts• Boysstoleayachtfromaguardandcauseddamageatayachtclub
Analysis/Rule• The“GoldenRule”fromDonoghuecanapplyinanysituationunlessthereisacompellingreasonforit
nottoapply• “Wherehumanactionformsoneofthelinksbetweentheoriginalwrongdoingofthedefendantand
thelosssufferedbytheplaintiff,thatactionmustatleasthavebeensomethingverylikelytohappenifitisnottoberegardedasnovusactusinterveniensbreakingthechainofcausation.Theverylikelinessofithappeningiswhatestablishesthelikelihoodofithappeningasaresultofthewrongfulorcarelessactionsofthedefendant”
ANNSV.MERTONLONDONBOROUGHCOUNCIL
• Twoparttest:o Whether,asbetweentheallegedwrongdoerandthepersonwhosuffereddamagethereisa
relationshipofproximityorneighborhoodsuchthat,inthereasonablecontemplationoftheformer,carelessnessonhispartmaybelikelytocausedamagetothelatter;ifyes,aprimafaciedutyarises
o Ifyes,whetherthereareanyconsiderationswhichoughttonegate,reduceorlimitthescopeofthedutyorclassofpersonstowhomitisowedorthedamagestowhichabreachofitmaygiverise
KAMLOOPSV.NIELSON(ELABORATEDONTHEANNSTEST)
• Isthereasufficientlycloserelationshipbetweentheparties…sothat,inthereasonablecontemplationofthedefendantcarelessnessonitspartmaycausedamagetothatperson?
• Arethereanyconsiderationswhichoughttolimit:o Thescopeofthedutyando Theclassofpersonstowhomitisowed,oro Thedamagestowhichabreachofitmaygiverise?
HILLV.HAMILTON-WENTWORTHPOLICESERVICESBOARD
Facts• Hillwasinvestigated,arrested,tried,wrongfullyconvictedandacquittedafter20monthsinprisonby
policefor10robberies
3
Issue• Canthepolicebefoundforthetortofnegligentinvestigation?
Rule/Analysis• Isthereapreviouslyrecognizedduty?àNo,sowemustgothroughtheAnnsTest
o Doestherelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendantdisclosesufficientforeseeabilityandproximitytoestablishaprimafaciedutyofcare
o Ifyes,arethereanyresidualpolicyconsiderationswhichoughttonegateorlimitthatdutyofcare?
Conclusion• Policeoweaprimafaciedutyofcaretosubjectsofinvestigation,butnotbreachedinthiscase
COOPERV.HOBART
Issue
• Doesastatutoryregulatorofmortgagebrokersoweaprivatelawdutyofcaretoindividualinvestors?
Rule/Analysis• SecondbranchofAnnswillbeinvokedtonegateaprimafaciedutyofcareforreasonsofpolicyonlyin
rarecircumstances,andforresidualpolicyconsiderations(outsidetherelationshipbetweentheparties,effectingotherlegalobligations,thelegalsystem,societymoregenerally)
Conclusion• ReasonableforeseeabilityBUTinsufficientproximitythereforeNOdutyofcare• Donoghue:“foreseeabilityaloneisnotenough;theremustalsobeacloseanddirectrelationship
RVIMPERIALTOBACCO,SCC2011
Facts• ImperialclaimsCanadanegligentlymisrepresentedthehealthattributesoflow-tarcigarettesto
consumersandisliableforcontributionandindemnityonthebasisoftheNegligenceActiftheclassmembersaresuccessful
• AlsoImperialallegedthatCanadamadenegligentmisrepresentationstothetobaccocompanies,andthatCanadaisliableforanylossesthatthetobaccocompaniesincurtotheplaintiffsineithercase
Issues• WhetherthefactsaspleasedbringCanada’srelationshipswithconsumersandthetobaccocompanies
withinasettledcategorythatgivesrisetoadutyofcareo Whetherthereisareasonableprospectthattherelationshipallegedinthepleadingswillgive
risetoliabilityfornegligentmisrepresentationRule
• HavetousethefirststageoftheAnnstesttodecideifthereisprimafaciedutyofcareinnegligentmisrepresentation.Ifnotstruckout,thenliable.
Analysis• McLachlin:factsdonotbringeitherclaimwithinasettledcategoryofnegligentmisrepresentation• Tobaccocompanieshavenotbeenabletoshowanyprecedentwheregovernmenthasbeenheld
liableinnegligentmisrepresentationforstatementsmadetoanindustry.• Inordertoseeifthereisreasonableprospectofsuccess,needtoconsiderwhetherthegeneral
requirementsoftoryliabilityaremet(i.e.Annstest)• Stage1:
4
o TobaccocompaniesarguetherewassufficientlycloseproximitybetweenCanadaandtheconsumers(knightcase)andCanadaandthetobaccocompanies(bothcases)tosupportadutyofcare.CanadacouldalsoreasonablyforeseethatconsumersandtobaccoindustrywouldrelyonCanadasstatementsaboutthehealthadvantagesoflightcigarettes,andthatwasreasonable
o Canadasaystheywereactingexclusivelyinaregulatorycapacitywhenthestatementsweremade.Alsocouldn’treasonablyforeseethatBClegislaturewouldenacttheCRAandcannotbeliableforpotentiallossesundertheAct
§ CourtagreesofthisbeingrejectedbythemajorityoftheCA(legislature)–reasonableforseeablethatitsnegligentmisrepresentationwouldcauseharmtothecompanies
• Complicatingfactoristheroleoflegislation.Twosituations:First,theallegeddutyofcareissaidtoariseexplicitlyorbyimplicationfromthestatutoryscheme.Second,situationwherethedutyofcareisallegedtoarisefrominteractionsbetweentheclaimantandthegovernmentandisnotnegatedbystatute.
• McLachlin:Canadadidn’toweaprimafaciedutytoconsumers,butdidowerPFdutytothetobaccocompanies
• HerculesManagements,specialrelationshipwillbeestablishedwhere”1)thedefendantoughtreasonablytoforeseethattheplaintiffwillrelyonhisorherrepresentation,and2)suchreliancewould,intheparticularcircumstancesofthecase,bereasonable.
Conclusion• ClaimsbetweentobaccocompaniesandCanadashouldnotbestruckoutatthefirststageoftheAnns
test.Theydiscloseaprimafaciedutyofcareinnegligentmisrepresentation• However,factsintheKnightscasedonotshowarelationshipbetweenCanadaandtheconsumers
thatwouldgiverisetoadutyofcareandshouldbestruckatfirststage.
UNFORESEEABLEPLAINTIFF
• Nodutyofcareisowedtotheunforeseeableplaintiffo Ifthereasonablehypotheticalobservercouldhavereasonablyforeseenthelikelihoodthat
anyoneplacedinthepositionoftheplaintiffwouldbeeffectedbyeventsinthewaytheplaintiffwas,theyarenotanunforeseeableplaintiff
PALSGRAFFV.LONGISLANDRAILWAY
Facts• Passengerontraincarryingfireworksispushedbysecurityguard;passengerfell,fireworksexploded;
scalefellonPalsgraffRule
• Beyondtherangeofforeseeabledanger;everyoneowestotheworldatlargeadutyrefrainingfromthoseactswhichthreatenthesafetyofothers
HAY(BOURHILL)V.YOUNG
Facts• Plwasapregnantwoman;shewasgettingoffabusandwasbehinditwhenanaccidenttookplacein
theintersection;claimingthatherstressfromthiseventandseeingdeceasedcausedherbabytobestillborn
5
Analysis/Rule• Wasthedamagetoapersonbehindthebusreasonableforeseeable?àNo
FARRUGIAV.GREATWESTERNRY.
• Itwasforeseeabletothedriverofanoverloadedlorrythatsomeonecouldbeinjuredshouldsomethingfalloff
• Doesnotmatterwhattheplaintiffwasdoingwhentheygotinjured;youoweadutytothosewhomaybeinthevicinityatanygiventime
UNBORNCHILDREN
DUVALV.SEGUIN
• Motherisclearlyaforeseeableplaintiff;butwhataboutherunbornchild?• Procreationis“normalandnecessary”;pregnantwomenmoveaboutonroadsandotherwise;itis
reasonablyforeseeablethatclassofforeseeablehighwayuserswillincludepregnantwomen• Damage(causedbyfaultofdefendant)is“suffered”whenchildbecomeslivingperson• SimilartoHaley(blindusersofthesidewalk)
DOBSONV.DOBSON
• Canamotherbeliableforpre-natalinjuriestoherownchildcausedbyherownnegligence?• Notortdutyofcareowedbymothertounbornfetus(majority)forreasonsofpublicpolicy• “Theprimarypurposeoftortlawistoprovidecompensationtotheinjuredanddeterrencetothe
tortfeasors.Intheordinarycourseofevents,theimpositionoftortliabilityonamotherforprenatalnegligencewouldprovideneithercompensationnotdeterrence.”
FAILURETOACT(AFFIRMATIVEACTION)
• Nonfeasance–Failuretoperformanactthatisprescribebylaw• Misfeasance–Totakeinappropriateactionorgiveintentionallyincorrectadvice
RELATIONSHIPSOFECONOMICBENEFIT
JORDANHOUSELTD.V.MENOW
Facts
• Misaregularcustomeratabarandwellknowntotheownerofthehotel,F;Mtendedtodrinktoexcessandactrecklesslyandtheemployeesknewthis;barredMforatime;thereafter,theemployeeswereinstructednottoservehimunlesshewasaccompaniedbyaresponsibleperson
• Maloneatbar;barsoldMdrinkspastpointofintoxication;Fbecomesawareheisdrunk;Mgestrowdy,ejectedfromthebar;FkneworoughttohaveknownthatMwasunabletotakecareofhimselfafterkickedout
• Itwasdarkandrainy,Mwanderedontohighwayandwashitbyacar
6
Analysis/Rule• Commercialhostshaveadutyofcaretoprotectpatronsfromforeseeableharmasaresultof
knowledgeoftheparticularindividual’scircumstancesandservingtoomuchalcohol,butnoinordinateeconomicburden.
• Creationofforeseeablerisk:o (1)HotelwasawareofM’sintoxicatedconditionwhichitfedbyservingMinviolationofliquor
lawso (2)NoreasonwhyhotelcouldnottakecaretoseethatMwasnotexposedtoinjury(i.e.they
couldhavecalledcab,M’semployer,police,orofferhimaroomorride).• “TherewasaprobableriskofpersonalinjurytoMifhewasturnedoutofthehoteltoproceedon
footonamuchtraveledhighwaypassinginfrontofthehotel.”• Factorsofproximity:
o (1)LiquorControlActàdoesnotestablishdutybutisfactorgoingtoproximityo (2)Hotelininviter/inviteerelationshipwithMasoneofitspatronso (3)HotelawareofM’sintoxicationandFEDitdespitelegalobligations
Conclusion• Resulthereisnottoimposeadutyoneverytavernownertoactasawatchdogforallpatronswho
enterhisplaceofbusinessanddrinktoexcessàagreatdealturnsontheknowledgeofthepatronandhisconditionwheretheissueisliabilityinnegligenceforinjuriessufferedbythepatron
o RulingreaffirmedinCrockerandSundance
STEWARTV.PETTIE
Facts
• Pwasservedtothepointofnoticeableintoxicationatrestaurant• DuringeveningPwassittingwithagroupoffriends,someofwhomweresober• Attheendofthenight,Pproceededtodrivehomeandinjuredtheplaintiffwhileonroute
Analysis/Rule
• Whereacommercialhostoverservesanindividual,thebarhasadutytoensuretheindividualhaspropermeansoftransportationanddoesnotinjureathirdparty.However,ifcircumstancesexistleadingthecommercialhosttobelievetheyhavemetthisduty,theywillNOTbeliable
• Althoughcommercialhostowesadutytoensureanintoxicatedpatrondoesnotinjurehimselforotherstherestaurantdidnotbreachtheirdutyinthiscase.ItwasreasonableforthecommercialhosttopresumethatoneofP’ssoberfriendsatthetablewouldhavedrivenhimhome
CHILDSV.DESORMEAUX
Facts
• AfterNewYear’sparty,DdroveimpairedandcrashedintoPl• ThepartywasBYOB&neitherhostmonitoredtheD’sdrinkingeventhoughknowndrinker• TrialjudgeandCAconcludedsocialhostsdoNOTowedutyofcaretomembersofthepublicwhomay
beinjuredbytheirintoxicatedguest• CaseappealedtoSCC
7
Analysis/Rule
• SocialhostsdoNOTowedutyofcaretothirdpartiesnegligentlyinjuredbyimpairedguests• Commercialhostsdistinguishedfromsocialhosts:
o Commercialhostshavespecialabilitytomonitorconsumption;specialknowledgeaboutintoxication,
o Saleandconsumptionincommercialsettingsstrictlyregulated;imposespecialresponsibilitiesonthosebenefittingfromthesaleofalcohol;notanordinarytransaction.“Partyhosthasneitherinstitutionalisedmethodofmonitoringalcoholconsumption,enforcinglimits,andnoexpectationthatheshoulddoso[thatwouldenablecontrolofanother]”
o Contractualnatureofcommercialhostrelationship;profitmotivepotentiallycreatesincentivetoover-serve;supportsimpositionofduty.
• AnnsTest–Step1(Primafacieduty?):o Injurynotreasonablyforeseeablebyhosts:noevidencehostsknewDwasdrunkwhenheleft;
thefactthathehaddrivendrunkbeforewasnotenougho Proximity:dutyregardingfailuretoactrequiressomethingmorethanforeseeability;requires
thatrelationshipsupportanexusbetweentheparties.• Socialhostsmerelyholdingaparty;insufficientcreationofrisktosupportaffirmativeduty(maybeif
alcoholprovidedtoobviousdrunk,butnotcasehere).Maintainingautonomyofbothguestandhostsupportsnodutyinthissetting-lawwillnotrequirehostesstostrictlymonitorconsumptionofguests.
RELATIONSHIPSOFCONTROLORSUPERVISION
KLAR,TORTLAW,2012
• Thereareseveralrelationshipsofcontrolorsupervisionwhichrequiredominantpartiestotakeaffirmativestepstoeitherpreventinjurytoorassistothersinvulnerablepositions
o Hallmarkoftheserelationships:thosewhoenterintothemdosowillingly,knowingthatsituationsmaydevelopwhichwillrequirethemtoactinordertoassistothers
o Thus,impositionofdutiesofaffirmativeactionisnotinconsistentwiththecommonlaw’sdesirenottointerfereundulywithone’sfreedomofaction
Notes
• Somerelationshipsofcontrolorsupervisionaregovernedbycontract,whileothersarenot.Klarsaysthatevenwithoutacontract,thereisinherenttortobligationtoassist
o Ex:mostobviousrelationshipofcontrolwhichrequiresadutytoassistàparentandchild• Shouldtherebeadutyonamothertoprotectherchildrenfromabusebyherhusband?Ifshedoesn’t
reportittopolice,canshebeasecondaryliableperson?• Landownersoweadutytothoseenteringtheirland• InCalifornia,theElderAbuseActprovidesfordamagestobeawardedagainstanyonewhoabusesthe
elderly,eitherphysicallyorfinancially.o Theabusemustbeprovedby“clearandconvincingevidence”whichrequiresrecklessnessor
intent
8
NON-CLOSEDCATEGORIESOFAFFIRMATIVEDUTIES
• “Apositivedutyofcaremayexistifforeseeabilityofharmispresentandifotheraspectsoftherelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendantestablishaspeciallinkorproximity.Threesuchsituationshavebeenidentifiedbythecourts.Theyfunctionnotasstrictlegalcategories,butrathertoelucidatefactorsthatcanleadtopositivedutiestoact.Thesefactors,orfeaturesoftherelationship,bringpartieswhowouldotherwisebelegalstrangersintoproximityandimposepositivedutiesondefendantsthatwouldnototherwiseexist.”
CATEGORIESOFAFFIRMATIVEDUTIES
1. Whereadefendantintentionallyattractsandinvitesthirdpartiestoaninherentandobviousriskthatheorshehascreatedorcontrols.
o Ex.Crockerv.SundanceNorthwestResortsLtd§ Thesecasesturnonthedefendant’scausalrelationshiptotheoriginoftheriskofinjury
facedbytheplaintifforonstepstakentoinviteotherstosubjectthemselvestoariskunderthedefendant’scontrol.
§ Ifthedefendantcreatesariskysituationandinvitesothersintoit,failuretoactthereafterdoesnotimmunizethedefendantfromtheconsequencesofitsacts.
2. Whereapositivedutyofcarehasbeenheldtoexistconcernspaternalisticrelationshipsofsupervision
andcontrol,suchasthoseofparent-childorteacher-student.o Ex.Dziwenkav.TheQueeninrightofAlberta
§ Thedutyinthesecasesrestsonthespecialvulnerabilityoftheplaintiffsandtheformalpositionofpowerofthedefendants
§ Thelawrecognizesthattheautonomyofsomepersonsmaybepermissiblyviolatedorrestricted,but,inturn,requiresthatthosewithpowerexerciseitinlightofspecialduties
3. Concernsdefendantswhoeitherexerciseapublicfunctionorengageinacommercialenterprisethat
includesimpliedresponsibilitiestothepublicatlarge.o Ex.Dunnv.DominionAtlanticRailwayCo;JordanHouseLtd.v.Menow;Doev.Metropolitan
Toronto(Municipality)CommissionersofPolice(1998)§ Inthesecases,thedefendantsofferaservicetothegeneralpublicthatincludes
attendantresponsibilitiestoactwithspecialcaretoreducerisk§ Whereadefendantassumesapublicrole,orbenefitsfromofferingaservicetothe
publicatlarge,specialdutiesarise.§ Thedutyofacommercialhostwhoservesalcoholtogueststoacttoprevent
foreseeableharmtothird-partyusersofthehighwayfallsintothiscategory:Stewartv.Pettie
COMMONTHEMES
• Creationorcontrolofrisk:o Defendant’smaterialimplicationincreationofriskorcontrolofarisktowhichothershave
beeninvited.• Concernfortheautonomyofthepersonsaffectedbythepositiveactionproposed:
o Lawdoesnotimposeadutytoeliminaterisk.
9
o Itacceptspeoplehavetherighttoengageinriskyactivities.o Itpermitsthirdpartieswitnessingrisktodecidenottobecomerescuersorotherwise
intervene.o Itisonlywhenthesethirdpartieshaveaspecialrelationshiptothepersonindangerora
materialroleinthecreationormanagementoftheriskthatthelawmayimpingeonautonomy.
• Reasonablereliance:o Unitesexamplesinallthreecategories.o Apersonwhocreatesorinvitesothersintoadangeroussituation,likethehigh-risksports
operator,mayreasonablyexpectthatthosetakinguptheinvitationwillrelyontheoperatortoensurethattheriskisareasonableoneortotakeappropriaterescueactioniftheriskmaterializes.
§ Ex.Ateacherwillunderstandthatthechildorthechild’sparentsrelyontheteachertoavoidandminimizerisk.
§ Ex.Reasonableexpectationbypublicthatapersonprovidingpublicservices,oftenunderlicense,willtakereasonableprecautionstoreducetheriskoftheactivity,notmerelytoimmediateclients,buttothegeneralpublic
CREATIONOFDANGEROUSSITUATIONS
OKEVWEIDETRANSPORT,1963MANITOBACA
Facts • Thedefendantdriver,withoutnegligence,knockeddownatrafficsignlocatedinthemiddleofagravel
stripdividingahighway;removeddebrisexceptmetalpostbecauseitwasembeddedtoosecurely• Hedecidedtocallthepolice,butagarageattendanttoldhimnotto• Adriverpassedoverthemetalpost,inthelanethatwasillegal,andthepostwentthroughthefloor
boardsandkilledhim• Attrial,defendantandemployerwereheldliableforthedeathduetonegligenceinfailingtonotify
police.MajorityofCourtofAppealdismissedtheactionongroundsoflackofforesightIssues
• IsthetruckdriverliableforOke’sdeath?• Wastherenegligenceinthecreationofthedangeroussituation?
Ratio/Analysis• Evenifyouareunderalegaldutytotakeresponsibilityforyournegligentactions,afailuretoact
(nonfeasance)topreventfutureharmisnotnegligentifthetypeofharmthatoccurredwasnotforeseeable
• Freedman(dissenting)–arguesthattheaccidentsatisfiedtherequirementofforeseeability.Hedisagreedwithmajorityandstatesthathisuniqueroleincausingthedamageputshiminaspecialclassofhisown.Itisnotlogicaltocomparehimtoamerepassingmotorist
Conclusion• Majoritydismissedtheactionàlackofforesight
ZIEMERVWHEELER2014BCSC2009
Facts• DefendantWheeler(1)non-negligentlystrikesamooseonthehighway,leavescarcassonroad
10
• 9minuteslater,Walter(2)(alsonon-negligently)strikesthemooseandlosescontrolofhispickuptruck,crossingoverintotheoncominglane
• TheplaintiffZiemer(3)non-negligentlycollidesheadonwithWalter’svehicleIssue
• DoesWheeleroweadutyofcaretoZiemer(or,otherusersoftheroad)?Rule/Analysis:
• 1.Novelduty?(precedent)o Broadlyspeaking,thereisprecedentfortheideaforamotoristthatnon-negligentlyhasaduty
insomecircumstancestoamelioratetherisk(OkevWeideTransport)• 2.Foreseeability?
o Theplaintiffhastoshowthat‘butfor’theactionsofthedefendant,theaccidentwouldn’thaveoccurred
§ Courtheld:ifDhadtakenreasonablestepstowarnothermotoristsofthehazard,thentheaccidentwouldnothavehappened,orattheveryleast,wouldnothaveresultedinsuchsignificantinjuries
Conclusion• Negligentforfailingtowarnothermotorists;nothittingthemoose• Adriverwhocollideswithwildlifemusttakereasonablestepstowarnotherusersofthehighway
aboutthewildlife• Whatconstitutesreasonableactionwillvarydependingonthecase• Thetimeavailabletothedriverisanimportantfactorinassessingreasonableness
RELIANCERELATIONSHIPSANDUNDERTAKINGS
ZELENKOVGIMBELBROS,1935NEWYORKSC
Facts
• Plaintiff’sintestatetookillindefendant’sstore• Defendanttriedtorendermedicalaid,butitdidn’twork• Plaintiffarguedthatifdefendanthadlefttheintestatealone,someonewouldhavecalledthe
ambulanceRatio/Analysis
• Thegeneralrule:Ifadefendantowesaplaintiffnoduty,thenrefusaltoactisnotnegligence• However,apersonmayassumeadutybymeddlinginmatterwithwhichlegalisticallyithadno
concernConclusion
• Decisioninfavourofplaintiff
STATUTORYDUTIES
O’ROURKEVSCHACHT,1972ONTCA
Facts• Awelllitbarriermarkingadetouraroundahighwayconstructionwasknockedoverbyacaratnight
ànotvisibletoothers• OPPinvestigatedtheaccident,butfailedtowarntrafficaboutthedangerontheroad
11
• Plaintiffwasinjuredwhenhedroveintotheunmarkedexcavation• ThepoliceactrequiredOPP,interalia“shallmaintainatrafficpatrol…”,andtheHTAempoweredPO’s
todirecttrafficinorder“toensureorderlymovement”and“preventinjuryordamagetopersonsorproperty
Rule/Analysis• Astatutorydutybyitselfdoesnotcreatecommonlawduty,butitcanbeusedtocreateaclduty• Schroeder:
o Itisimpossibleandinadvisabletoattempttoframeadefinitionwhichwillsetdefinitelimitstothepowersanddutiesofpoliceofficersappointedtocarryoutthepowersofthestateinrelationtoindividualswhocomewithinitsjurisdictionandprotection
o RespondentPO’swereunderastatutorydutytomaintainatrafficpatrolofthehighwayinquestion
§ Patrolmeanstopolicepassingalonghighwaysorstreetsintheperformanceoftheirdutiesàtoensurethattrafficlawswillbeobeyed,toinvestigateroadaccidents,andtoassistinjuredpersons
o Officerswereunderapositivedutybyvirtueoftheirofficetotakeappropriatemeasuresinthefaceofahazardousconditionsuchastheyencounteredheretoapproachingtrafficofitspresence
o Normally,thiswouldappeartobenonfeasance,however,inthecaseofpublicservantssubjectnottoameresocialobligation,buttoalegalobligation,itwasnonfeasanceamountingtomisfeasance
§ Dutieslaiduponthemarefromrelevantstatuesandcommonlaw§ It’slikeowingapositiveduty
Conclusion• Courtallowedtheplaintifftorecover50%ofhisdamagesagainstthepoliceadministration
STANDARDOFCARE:BREACHOFDUTY
UNREASONABLERISK
• Thestandardofcarerequiredisnotthatofperfectionàneedtobereasonable• Whatdoesitmeantobereasonable?ànotcreate“unreasonablerisk”
BOLTONV.STONE
Facts• Batterhitacricketballoutofthefieldandithitsomeoneonanadjacenthighway• Ballhadonlybeenhitoverthefence6timesin30years
Rule• Thetesttobeappliediswhethertheriskofdamagetoapersonwassosmallthatareasonableperson
wouldnothavetakenstepstoavoidit• Inweighingrisks,thereasonablepersonshouldconsiderthelikelihoodofapersonbeinginjuredand
theseriousnessofdamageshouldapersonbeinjuredAnalysis
• Anythingwhichisnotafantasticpossibilityisreasonablyforeseeableàoncetheballhasbeenhitoutsideoftheparkitisforeseeableitwillhappenagain
• Reasonablemancannotcreateriskthatissubstantialàneedanelementoflikelihood
12
PARISVSTEPNEYCOUNTYCOUNCIL
Facts• Oneeyedplaintiff;goodeyeisdamagedinworkplace;suesemployerfornotprovidinggoggles(usual
practice)Ratio
• Magnitudeofharm+likelihoodofrisk• “Ifprecautionsaretakenwhichwouldhavebeenreasonableinthecaseofpersonspossessedofthe
usualfacultiesofsightandhearing,thiswillbesufficienttomeetthestandardofcareowedtoapersonwhoisnotpossessedofthosefaculties,unlessthedefendantwasawareoftheplaintiff’sinfirmity”
• PotentialgravityofharmshouldinfluenceRP’sdecisiontoguardagainstitAnalysis
• Thoughcustom/normdoesnotprovideworkerswithgoggles,Paris’soneeyemeansthereisahigherdutyofcareowedtohim
o Why?Magnitudeofharmishigherforhim;shouldhiseyebestruck,hewouldhavezerovisibilityVSaregularworkwhowouldstillhaveoneeyetoseeoutof
Conclusion• DOCowedtoone-eyedemployee
WATTVHERTFORDSHIRECOUNTYCOUNCIL
Facts• JackwasnotproperlysecuredatbackoffiretruckandinjuredWatt
Ratio• Theremustbeabalanceintheriskagainsttheendtobeachieved• Incasesofemergency(e.g.fire),riskissometimesjustifiableifserioussocialobjectives(tosavelife&
limb)
REASONABLEPERSON
• Thereasonablepersondoesnotcreateunreasonablerisk• Evaluatethedefendant’sdecisionmakingbasedonanobjectivestandardàwhatwouldtheobjective
reasonablepersondo?
VAUGHANV.MENLOVE
Facts• Dbuiltahayrickneartheboundaryofhislandandhisneighbour’sland• PlwarnedDthattherewasaseriouschancethatthehayrickwouldcatchfireandspreadtohis
propertyàDignoredthis• Thehayrickcaughtfireandspreadtotheplaintiff’scottages,whichwerecompletelydestroyed
Rule• “TheORPshouldnotjustbeconsideredtobearandompersonoffthestreet;itshouldbeconsidered
asareasonablepersonwiththesameknowledge,inthesamesituation”
BLYTHV.BIRMINGHAMWATERWORKS
Facts• Dinstalledafire-plugmadeaccordingtothebestknowndesign;severefrostledtotheplugbeing
damagedandmajorfloodingoccurredcausingdamagetothePl’sproperty
13
Analysis/Rule• Reasonablemanwouldactinaccordancetotheaveragetemperatureinthelastfewyearswhichis
whattheDdid;frostthatyearwasnottypicalforthatareaàDcouldnothaveknownthiswouldhappen
• Thereisnoneedtobeperfect;onemustsimplyactreasonably
PRASADV.FERGUSON <whendoesrphaveanobligationtomakeinquiries?>
Facts• Within48hoursorarrivinginCanadafromEngland,plaintiffwasthepassengerinacarandwasnot
wearingaseatbelt;otherdriverwasoverthespeedlimitIssue
• Isplaintiffcontributorynegligentforherinjuries?• Washerfailuretowearaseatbeltafailuretomeetthestandardofcarerequiredofareasonable
personinthissituation?Rule/Analysis
• Contextmatters:ifyoudon’tknowanybetter,youdon’thavetomakeanyinquiries(e.g.seekingexpertadvice)
• Noevidenceplaintiffknewthepossibleseverityofinjuriesresulting• Look to see whether a reasonable person in England had to wear a seatbelt: in 1985, it was not
mandatorytowearseatbeltsinEngland• Timeshewasinthecountryisrelevanttothecase
CAMINERVNORTHERN&LONDONINVT.TRUST<whendoesrpconsultanexpert>
Rule/Analysis• Dutyofthelandownertoinspecttheirtreestoensuresafetybutiftherearenoexternalindicationsof
aproblem,thereisnorequirementtoconsultanexperto Ask-Wouldareasonableownerhavethoughtitnecessarytocallinanexpertabouthistree?
No.Again,nothingaboutthetreemadeitseemlikesuchactionwasrequired.• CourtfoundDfulfilledhisextentofduty,unlesstheappellantcouldprovetherewassomething
particularaboutthetreewhichwouldhavesuggestedactionrequired
QUINNV.SCOTT <whendoesrpconsultanexpert>
Rule/Analysis• SameasaboveexceptDretainedaprofessionalforestryadvisor• Hadthethinningbranchesbeenreportedtohim,hewouldhavedetectedtherot(althoughitwould
nothavebeenapparenttotheordinaryperson)• Giventhecircumstancesandthelevelofexpertisereadilyavailabletothetreeowner,theyareliable
innegligence
CONEV.WELOCK <whendoesrpconsultanexpert>
Facts• Guestatahuntinglodgetriedtostartafireinafireplacewithasubstancehewronglybelievedtobe
furnaceoil;itwasgasolineandthecabinburneddown
14
Issue• Washisbehaviour“reasonable”underthecircumstances?Didhemeetthestandardofcareofa
reasonablepersoninthesamecircumstances?o Ifno,hebreachedthestandardofcareo Ifyes,thereisnobreachandnoliability
Rule/Analysis• Asperthefacts,theDtooktheprecautionarystepsneededtoensurethatthestandardofa
reasonablepersonwasmet
CARROLLV.CHICKENPALACE <SOC&physicaldisability>
Rule• Whenapersonhasadisability,theonusisonthatpersontotakespecialprecautionsin“unusual”
dangersAnalysis
• Toablindperson,thepremisewasfullofunusualdangers;nothingunusual/dangeroustoafullsightedperson
Conclusion• Restaurantwasnotnegligent;nobreachofdutyowedbydefendant
HALEYV.LONDONELECTRICITYBOARD <SOC&physicaldisability>
Facts• Everydayblindplaintifftooksameroutetowork;workmenbeganexcavatingatrenchonsidewalk
unknowntoplaintiff;failedtoproperlyplaceobstacles;plaintifftrippedandstruckheadbecomingdeaf;obstaclescouldonlybeseenbysightedpeople
Rule• Publicincludesblindpersons,thereforetheyareRFandmustbetakenintoaccount
Analysis• DistinguishedfromChickenPalace–morelikelyablindpersonwillusethesidewalk• Personwalkedsamewayeveryday;noknownrisks• Blindpersondoesnotneedtouseheighteneddegreeofcareorskill
Conclusion• RFthatablindpersonwoulduseapublicwalkway;LEBbreachedduty• “…ameasureofcareappropriatetotheinabilityordisabilityofthosewhoareimmatureorfeeblein
mindorbodyisduefromotherswhoknowof,oroughttoanticipate,thepresenceofsuchpersonswithinthescopeandhazardoftheirownoperation.”
Alwayscomesdownto:WhatwouldaRPdointhissituation?Howwouldtheyassesstherisk?
15
CUSTOM
• thewaythingshavetraditionallybeendonebyothersinthecommunity/area
• TheRP,toacertainextent,canrelyonwhatthecustomisandseethatthisisinfactareasonablewaytodothings.
o ProvidesanothermeasureofreasonablenesswhendeterminingtheappropriatecourseofactionBUTisnotdeterminativeofareasonableaction
WALDICKV.MALCOLM
Facts• WslippedandfellontheicyparkingareaoftheM’srentedfarmhouse;areahadn’tbeensaltedor
sanded(somepeoplehaddoneso);Marguedthatitwasthecustomintheareanottosandorsalttheparkingarea
Analysis/Rule• Customisnotdeterminative;itcanbeunreasonableitself(DrewryvDowns);courtsdecidewhatis
reasonable• Customisnotconclusiveevidenceofwhatisorisnotreasonableinaparticularsetofcircumstances,
butdoesprovideausefulguidelineforwhatwillbereasonable• Justascompliancewithcustomisnotconclusiveofreasonablecare,deviationfromcustomisnot
conclusiveofnegligence(BrownvRollsRoyce)• Customdoesnotwaivethenormalstandardofcarerequiredbyareasonableperson
STATUTORYSTANDARDS
• Abreachofastatutorystandardcanbeseenasevidenceofabreachofthestandardofcare,butabreachofthestatutorystandardisnotitselfabreachofthestandardofcare
o Compliancewithastatutorystandarddoesnotmeanthestandardofcarehasbeenmet
R.V.SASKATCHEWANWHEATPOOL
Facts• Beetleinfestationatagrainelevatorandgrainisinfected;partiescannotlocatesourceofinfestation;
deliveryofinfestedgrain=statutorybreach;seekingdamagesfor“breachofstatute”Rule
• TEST:Touseabreachofstatuteasevidenceofnegligence,theincidentinquestionmustbeofthetypethatthestatutewasmeanttopreventandconnectedtothereasonsthestatutewasenacted
Analysis• Nosuchtortas“breachofstatute”;breachofstatutestandard(becausetheyabidedotherwise)can
beusedasEVIDENCEofabreachofstandardofcare,butitisnotdeterminativeofabreachConclusion
• Proofofstatutorybreach,causativeofdamages,maybeevidenceofnegligence(likecustom)• Statutoryformulationofthedutymayaffordaspecificandusefulstandardofreasonableconduct
16
GORRISV.SCOTT
Facts• P,senthissheeponScott’sSheep.DiseaseActsaidtotiethesheepdown,butwasnotfollowed.
Sheepwaslost.Pissuing.Analysis
• StatutewasaboutprotectingsheepfromdiseaseNOTaboutpreventingloss.Rule
• Substanceofthestatutemustrelatetothebreachofthestandardofcare-otherwiseirrelevant• Oneisnotliableforaviolationofastatuteifthedamagecomplainedofisnotthepurposeofthe
statute
RYANV.VICTORIACITY
Facts• Rwasinjuredwhenhedroveoverrailwaytracksinthecity;trackswerecompliantw/allnecessary
statutoryrequirements;doesmeetingthestatutoryrequirementmeanthestandardofcarehasbeenmet?
Analysis/Rule• Compliancewithastatutorystandardofcaredoesnotabrogateorsupersedetheobligationtocomply
withthecommonlawstandardofcare• Inappropriatecircumstancescompliancewithstatutorystandardsmayentirelysatisfythestandardof
careandthusabsolveadefendantofliabilityinnegligence• Likelythatcompliancewithastatute=reasonablestandardofcarewherethestatuteauthorizes
certainactivitiesandstrictlydefinesmannerofperformanceo Whereastatutorystandardprovidesbroadandgeneralguidelines,merecomplianceofthe
lawisunlikelytoexhaustthestandardofcare.o Ontheflipside,ifthestatutestrictlydefinesactions,complianceislikelytoshowreasonable
care.• Merecomplianceisunlikelytoexhaustthestandardofcarewhereastatuteisgeneralandpermits
discretioninperformance
EXCEPTIONSTOTHERPSTANDARD
THEYOUNG <lowerSOC>
• Thereasonablepersonstandardofcareisrelaxedfortheyoung• Generalrule:nochildundertheageof7canbeliablefornegligenceàdonotunderstandtheir
actionswillhaveconsequencesandtheyneedtotakeresponsibilityfortheiractions• Two-PartTest:
o Isthisparticularchildcapableofnegligenceliability?(subjectivequestion)o Ifyes,wouldthereasonablechildofsimilarage,experienceandintelligenceunderstandand
appreciatethedangerofrisk?(McEllistrumv.Etches)§ Wouldareasonablechildtakethesamerisk?
• Ifyoungpeopleareengagedinadultactivities,theyareheldtotheadultstandardofcare
17
HEISLERV.MOKE <articulationoftherule>
Facts• Infantdrivingtractor,injuredsomeoneelse
Rule• Childrenarenotheldtothereasonablepersonstandardofanadult• Testforfindingnegligenceforchildren:
1. Considertheage,intelligence,experienceoftheparticularchild.(subjectivetest)2. Askwhatareasonablechild(ofthatage)couldbeexpectedtodoandforeseeunderthese
particularcircumstances.(objectivetest)
MCEARLENV.SAREL <youngengagedinadultactivity>
Rule• “Whenachildengagesinwhatmaybeclassifiedasanadultactivity’[inthiscaseridingtrailbikes]he
orshewillnotbeaccordedspecialtreatmentandnoallowancewillbemadeforhisorherimmaturity.Inthiscircumstancestheminorwillbeheldtothesamestandardofcareasanadultengagedinthesameactivity”
NESPOLONV.ALFORD <youngengagedinadultactivity>
Facts• 16yearolds(JandK;Ds)drivinginebriated14-year-oldhome;dropshimoffnearby(at14yearold’s
request);14yearoldwandersintoroad;accidentensues,causingdeathto14yearold,nervousshocktothirdparty(driverwhostruckhim;P)
Issue/Holding• WasAlfordnegligentofa16yrold?NO• Wasthe“droppingoff”ofSnideranadultactivity?NO
Ratio• Childrenwillonlybeheldliableonanadultstandard,ifengagedinadultactivity
Analysis• NoreasonforAlfordtosuspectthatSniderwasatrisk,orfallontheroadcausingriskofnervousshock
toastranger.Droppinghimoffatthesideoftheroadisnotanadultactivity
MENTALANDPHYSICALDISABILITY <lowerSOC>
• PersonssufferingfromadisabilityneednotcomplywiththeRPstandard(seeFialaTest)
FIALAV.CECHMANEK
Facts• Whileonarun,Robhadamanicepisode(diagnosedlaterasbipolardisorder);jumpedonC’svehicle;
wentthroughthesunroofandbeganchokingher;CinvoluntarilysteppedonthegaspedalandhitF’scar
• WhatisthestandardofcarethatshouldbeappliedtoRob’sbehaviour?
18
Rule/Analysis• TEST:InordertoberelievedoftortliabilitywhenaDisafflictedsuddenlyandwithoutwarningwitha
mentalillness,thatDmustshoweitherofthefollowingonBALANCEOFPROBABILITIES:
1. Asaresultoftheirmentalillness,theDhadnocapacitytounderstandorappreciatetheDOCowedattherelevanttime;OR
2. Asaresultofmentalillness,theDwasunabletodischargetheirDOCastheyhadnomeaningfulcontrolovertheiractionsatthetimetherelevantconductfellbelowtheobjectiveSOC
Conclusion• ToholdsomeonetoaSOCthattheycannotrealisticallymeetwouldcreateasituationof‘strict
liability’orliabilitywithoutfault(remember:intort,faultisthebreach!)• Mustbeconsistencywithotherrulesoftort;standardshavebeenrelaxedfortheyoungbecauseit
wouldbeunreasonabletoexpectthemtobeheldtoit.Samerulesapplyhere.Itwouldbeunreasonabletoexpectapersonwithamental/physicaldisabilitytobeheldtothesameSOCofaRP.
PROFESSIONALNEGLIGENCE <higherSOC>
• Standardofcareforadoctor/surgeon/professionalo Itisexpectedofsuchaprofessionalmanthatheshouldshowafair,reasonableandcompetent
degreeofskill(reasonabledoctorinthatsituation,giventhatknowledge)(SalmondonTorts)§ Asurgeonisexpectedtoapplythedegreeofcarewhichanormallyskilledmemberof
hisprofessionmaybereasonablyexpectedtoexercise”(Fleming,LawofTorts)• Theparamountneedforcompensatingaccidentvictims,however,clearlyoutweighsallcompeting
considerations,&thebeginneris,therefore,heldtothestandardofthosewhoarereasonablyskilledorproficientinthatoccupationorcalling…”(Fleming)
CHALLANDV.BELL
Facts• Plfellandbrokehisarminafarm;Dconcludedtherewasnocontaminationandputthearminacast;
swellingoccurredandDdidwhathethoughtwasbestforthesituation;armhadtobeamputatedduetoinfection
Analysis/Rule:• Asurgeonisexpectedtoapplythedegreeofcarewhichanormallyskilledmemberofhisprofession
maybereasonablyexpectedtoexercise• WILSONTEST:
o 1.Physicianundertakesthatthathepossessestheskill,knowledgeandjudgmentoftheaverage
o 2.Injudgingthataverage,regardmustbehadtothespecialgrouptowhichhebelongs;fromageneralpractitionerataruralpointadifferentstandardisexactedfromaspecialistatanurbanpoint
o 3.Ifthedecisionwasaresultofexercisingthataveragestandard,thereisnoliabilityforanerrorinjudgment
19
TERNEUZENV.KORN
Facts• PlcontractedHIVafterreceivingartificialinseminationtreatment;customtonotscreendonorsfor
HIV/STIs/etc.Rule
• Specialistsareheldtoahigherstandardofcarethanaregulardoctor• Significanceofcustominthiscontext:“asageneralrule,whereaprocedureinvolvesdifficultor
uncertainquestionsofmedicaltreatmentorcomplex,scientificorhighlytechnicalmattersthatarebeyondtheordinaryexperienceandunderstandingofajudgeorjury,itwillnotbeopentofindastandardmedicalpracticenegligent.
o Maybeanexceptiontothegeneralruleifastandardpracticefailstoadoptobviousandreasonableprecautionswhicharereadilyapparenttotheordinaryfinderoffact[custom,heremayalsobe“unreasonable”]
o Mattersfallingwithintheordinarycommonsenseofjuriescanbejudgedtobenegligent
VANCOUVERGENERALHOSPITALV.FRASER
Rule• Standardofcareforaninternisthatofareasonablycompetentinternandnotofaphysician
• Thisincludesanappreciationofhisownknowledgelimitsandneedtoconsult,seekassistance,asnecessary
BROWNV.UOFA
Rule� 1.SOCofpractitioneristhatof“normal,prudentpractitioner� 2.SpecialistheldtoahigherSOCthanGPs(“ifheholdshimselfoutasaspecialistahigherdegreeof
skillisrequired”)� 3.Sameprincipleappliestodiagnosis,treatment,andmedicalreports� 4.Standardappliedisthatoftimetheeventstookplace
REIBLV.HUGHES <dutyofdisclosure>
Facts• Plaskedaboutpossibilityofastroke;DtoldhimthatchanceofparalysisifPldidnotundergothe
surgerywerehigh;Dsaidnothingofthechanceofstroke/paralysisduringorshortlyafterthesurgery• Plhadastrokeafterthesurgeryandwasparalyzed;testifiedthatifhehadknownoftheriskof
paralysisafterthesurgeryhewouldnothaveundergonetheprocedureRule/Analysis
• Dutytodisclosematerialrisks!Doctor’smustdiscloseallrelevantriskstothepatientbeforesurgery• OnaBoP,havingbeeninformedofrisks,wouldaRPintheP’spositionhaveoptedagainst
surgery/treatment?(BvS:likelinessofriskvgravityofharm)o CausationisonlyestablishedwhenthereasonablepersoninthePl’spositionwouldhave
foregonetheprocedureifhe/shehadbeenproperlyinformed
20
Conclusion• Failuretodiscloseadequatelycausedplaintiff’slossbecauseitcausedhimtomakeachoice,tohis
owndetriment,thatotherwisehewouldnothavemadeifhehadbeenproperlyinformed(negligentnon-disclosureofrisks)
HOPP.VLEPP
Rule• Adoctorshouldansweranyspecificquestionaskedtohimastotherisksinvolvedintheprocedure
andshould,withoutbeingquestioneddisclose:o Natureofproposedprocedureo Gravityofharmo Allmaterial/special/unusualrisksassociatedwiththeprocedure
• Evenifacertainriskisamerepossibilitywhichordinarilyneednotbedisclosed,ifitsoccurrencecarriedseriousconsequencesitshouldberegardedasamaterialriskrequiringdisclosure
WHITEV.TURNER <materialriskdefined>
• Materialrisksaresignificantrisksthatposearealthreattothepatient’slife,healthorcomfort.• Inconsideringwhetherariskismaterial,onemustbalancetheseverityofthepotentialresultandthe
likelihoodofitsoccurring(evenisthereisonlyasmallchanceofseriousinjuryordeath)• Ifthereissignificantchanceofslightinjury,thistoomaybematerial
o Unusualorspecialrisksmustalsobedisclosed
BRENNERV.GREGORY <lawyer’sSOC>
Rule
• Obligationofasolicitoro Toactinaccordancewiththegeneralandapprovedpracticefollowedbysolicitorsunlesssuch
practiceisinconsistentwithprudentprecautionsagainstaknownrisk,aswhereheorshefailstocarryoutparticularinstruction
§ AKA:liableiffoundthattheirerror/ignorancewassuchthatanordinarilycompetentlawyerwouldnothavemadeorshownit
• Nolawyerwouldhavethoughttohavetogothroughlandsurveytofindpropertyborders
DAMAGE
• Evenifthere’sadutyofcare,andthestandardofcarerequiredhasbeenbreached–therecanbenoliabilityinnegligenceunlesssomedamagehasbeensufferedbytheplaintiffANDitisshownthatthedamageflowedFROMthebreach(causation)
CAUSATION
• ThereisnoliabilityinnegligenceunlesstheactcausedthePl’sdamage(damagemustflowfromthebreach)
21
• Cause-in-fact:mustbesomelinkorconnectionbetweenthewrongfulactandthelossbeingcomplainedof.
• “ButFor”Test:determinescausationàbutfortheactoftheD,thePlwouldnothavesufferedanydamages
o Ifthelosswouldnothaveoccurredbutfortheconductofthedefendant,itisacauseoftheloss
§ IOW:Ifthedamagewouldhaveoccurredwithorwithouttheactionsofthedefendant,theconductisnotacauseofthedamage
o Basedonthebalanceofprobabilities
“BUTFOR”TEST
KAUFFMANV.TTC
Facts• Plwasonanescalatoratasubwaystationwhentwokidsinfrontofherfellbackwards;fellontopof
thePlandshewasinjured• Plargues,butfortheinadequatehandrailsinstalledbyTTCherdamagewouldn’thaveoccurred
Analysis/Rule• ButforTestàbutfortheactoftheD,thePlwouldnothavesufferedanydamages• Noevidenceofmanoryouthsattemptingtograsphandrailbeforefalling;noevidenceofplaintiff
doingso;noevidencehandrailacontributingfactortoincident• Nocausationàcannotsay“butfor”thehandraildesignincidentwouldnothaveoccurred
THEBASICPRINCIPLES
ATHEYVLEONATI[1996]SCC <exceptiontobf>
Facts• Atheysufferedbackinjuriesintwosuccessivecaraccidents,andsoonafterexperiencedadisc
herniationduringastretchingexercise.Amixtureoftheinjuriesfromthetwoaccidentsandapreexistingconditioncausedthis.
Issue• Shouldthelossbeapportionedbetweentortiousandnon-tortiouscauseswherebothwerenecessary
tocreatetheinjury?Rule/Analysis
• Insomecases,BFtestmaybefactuallyunworkable,socausationmayalsoberecognisedincaseswherethebreach“materiallycontributed”tothedamage(acontributingfactorismaterialifitfallsoutofthedeminimisrange)
• CausationcanbeestablishedwhereD’sneg“materiallycontributed”totheinjuryo NotnecessarytoestablishthatD’snegwasthesolecauseofinjury(contributingcausesare
acceptable)• Lawdoesnotexcuseadefendantfromliabilitymerelybecauseothercausalfactorsforwhichhe’snot
responsibleforalsohelpedproducetheharm• Ifthedefendant’sconductisfoundtobeacauseoftheinjury,thepresenceofothernon-tortious
contributingcausesdoesnotreducethedefendant’sliability• Anindependentinterveningactwillbreakthechainofcausation.IIAisafreshcauseofdamage,andit
isunjusttoshiftlosscausedbytheIIAtotheD.
22
• “ThinSkull”Doctrine:whenpre-existingconditionswouldnothavecausedtheinjurybutforthe
defendant’sactions;DtakesthePastheyfindthem;willbeliablefortheplaintiff’slosses• “CrumblingSkull”Doctrine:makesthetortfeasorliablefortheplaintiff’sinjurieseveniftheinjuriesare
unexpectedlysevereowingtoapre-existingcondition(wouldhavesufferedthatmuchinthefutureanyways,whichdistinguishesitfromthinskullrule)
REVERSEONUSANDINFERENCE
INFERRINGCAUSATION
• Relaxedrequirementofproofofcausationo McGheev.NationalCoalBoard(UK)
§ OnusofproofoflackofcausationshiftstoDifPlcanshowthatdefendantmateriallyincreasedriskofinjury,andinjuryoccurred“withinthatrisk”(Snellv.Farrell)
o McGheeprinciple:iftheplaintiffcanprovethatthedefendantmateriallyincreasedtheriskofinjurytotheplaintiff,thenthedefendantisliable
• Noreverseonus;notnecessarytofairlycompensateplaintiffswhere“substantial”connectiontolossexists;rather,“commonsense”inferenceofcausation
SNELLVFARRELL
Facts• Plhadeyesurgery;Dinjectedanaestheticandsawbleedingbutcontinuedanyways;subsequent
damageoccurredtotheeye(blindness)àdiditflowfromD’sbehaviouroranothercause?• TrialjudgeappliedreverseonusprinciplefromMcGhee;confirmedbyCA
Analysis/Rule• SCCrejectedthereverseonusprinciple;onusisonthePltoprovedamages• Withinthisprinciplelaytwounderlyingfactors:
o 1.Onusisonpartywhoassertstheproposition,usuallytheplaintiff;ando 2.Wherethesubjectmatteroftheallegationliesparticularlywithintheknowledgeofone
party,thatpartymayberequiredtoproveit.§ Especiallyinmalpracticecases,thefactsliewithintheknowledgeofthedefendant,
whohasmoreknowledgeintheareainwhichtheypractice.• Courtfoundthat“thelegalandultimateburdenremainswiththeplaintiff,asinthetraditional
approach,butintheabsenceofevidencetothecontraryadducedbythedefendant,aninferenceofcausationmaybedrawn,althoughpositiveorscientificproofofcausationhasnotbeenadduced.”Ifsomeevidenceisadducedbythedefendant,thetrialjudgemustweighalloftheevidencebeforehim.
MATERIALINCREASEINRISK(INSTEADOF“BUTFOR”TEST)
MaterialContributionToRiskTest(Resurfice):
• ItmustbeimpossiblefortheplaintifftoprovethattheD’snegligencecausedthePl’sinjuryusingthe“butfor”test
o TheimpossibilitymustbeduetofactorsoutsideofthePl’scontrol• ItmustbeclearthattheDbreachedadutyofcareowedtothePl,therebyexposingthePltoan
unreasonableriskofinjury,andthePlmusthavesufferedthatformofinjuryo ThePl’sinjurymustfallwithintheambitoftheriskcreatedbytheD’sbreach
23
CLEMENTSVCLEMENTS
Facts• Mr.CandMrs.Cridingamotorcycle;bikeisoverweightandthetirepuncturesduetoanail;Mr.Clost
controlandMrs.Cwasthrownoffthebike;sufferedseverebraindamage• Courtmustdeterminewhichtesttouseà“butfor”testormaterialcontributiontorisktest
Analysis/Rule• Defaulttesttouseifthe“butfor”test;onlyusematerialcontributionwhenitisimpossibleto
determinewhichoneofmultipleactsdonebymultiplepeoplecausedtheinjury(radicalstepisrarelytaken)
• Youcanstrayawayfromthe“butfor”testifitwasscientificallyimpossibletoshowcausationandsomethingelse(goreadthecaseagain)
• Materialcontributionwillonlybesubstitutedfor“butfor”whereitisimpossibletosaythataparticulardefendant’snegligentactinfactcausedtheinjury.Itimposesliabilitybutnotbecausetheactcausedtheinjury,butbecausetheactcontributedtotheriskthatinjurywouldoccur.
MULTIPLECAUSES:TWONEGLIGENTDEFENDANTS,ONECAUSEOFACCIDENT
COOKANDLEWISDISTINGUISHED
• “Reversingtheburdenofproofmaybejustifiedwheretwodefendantsnegligentlyfireinthedirectionoftheplaintiffandbytheirtortiousconductdestroysproof…Insuchacaseitisclearthattheinjurywasnotcausedbyneutralconduct.Itisquiteadifferentmattertocompensateaplaintiffbyreversingtheburdenofproofforaninjurythatmayverywellbeduetofactorsunconnectedtothedefendantandnotthefaultofanyone.”
COOKVLEWIS
Facts• Twohuntingpartiesintheforest;twoshootersinonepartyshoottheirgunsnegligentlyandhitaman
intheotherparty;whichshothitthemanandwhoisliable?Analysis/Rule
• ReversingtheburdenofproofisjustifiedwheretwoormoreD’sarenegligenttowardsthePlandcausationcan’tbeprovenbecausetheD’stortiousconductdestroyedproofoftheoffence
• ActionofthetwoD’scausedtheharmtothePlsotheyshouldhavetoabsolvethemselves(Summersv.Tice);notfairifPlisnotcompensated
NB:ApplyMCTRTestwhen2elementsexist:
1. Impossibletodeterminewhichparticularactcausedtheinjury2. Thereisanobviousconnectionbetweenthebreachcreatingtheriskthatledtotheharm.
REMOTENESS
• Evenifthereisanobligationtotakereasonablecareanditwasbreached,howfarwilllegalliabilityoftheDstretch?
• Isthedamagetooremotefromthebreachtoestablishnegligence/berecoverable?
24
o “Itisenoughtofixliabilityifonecouldforeseeinageneralwaythesortofthingthathappened.Theextentofthedamageanditsmannerofincidenceneednotbeforeseeableifphysicaldamageofthekindwhichinfactensuesisforeseeable”(Assiniboine)
o Ifthedamagecanberegardedasdifferentinkindfromwhatwasforeseeable,onecanescapeliability
• Remotenessdoesnotgetraisedineverycase;Remotenessanswershowthedamageflowsfromthebreach(howremoteisthedamagefromthebreachitself)
BASICPRINCIPLES
WAGONMOUND#1[1961]PC <rftest>
Facts• Bunkeroilwascarelessdischargedfromashipintoabay(breach)• Oilspreadtowheretherewasshiprepairshappening,andasparkfromweldingoperationsignited
andsettheoilonfire(causation)• Thefiredestroyedthewharf(damage)
Analysis/Rule• Thetestcomingoutforremotenessisusingforeseeabilityasthelimitingprinciple:“thetestforliabilityfor
shockisforeseeabilityofinjurybyshock”• Courtsaid:“amanshouldbeconsideredtoberesponsiblefortheprobableconsequencesofhisact.Todemand
moreofhimistooharsh…”• Inthiscase,questionshouldbeforeseeabilityofinjurybyfire
o Ddidnotknowandcouldnothaveknownthatoilcouldbesetalightwhenspreadonwater–damagewastooremote
HUGHESVLORDADVOCATE[1963]HOL
Facts• Employeesworkingonexposedmanholeandclearlymarkeditasdangerous.Duringtheirbreak,aboy
namedHugheswentdowntoexplore.• Aftergettingbackout,Hughestrippedanddroppedthelampintotheholewhereanexplosion
happenedcausinghimtofallbackandgetburnedAnalysis/Rule
• Damagewasnottooremote–possibilityofdangersofburningbyaccessible,unattendedlightsisareasonablyforeseeableconsequence
WAGONMOUND#2[1966]PC
Facts• Sameincident,differentPs:ownersofothershipsthatwasdamagedbythefire
Analysis/Rule
• ModernRemotenessQuestion:Isthedamagereasonablyforeseeablefromthestandpointofthebreach?
• Whenasking“remoteness”toincludeconsequencesthattheDwouldhaverecognizedasrealrisktowhichthereasonablepersonwouldhavenotignored
25
• Itwashisdutyandinteresttostopthedischargeofoil.Itwasarealrisknoreasonablemanwouldignore–andthereforebreachofduty,damagenottooremote
PALSGRAFVLONGISLANDRAILROADCO[1928]NYCA
Facts• Manbeingassistedontoatrain,employeesaccidentallyknockdownhiswrappedparceloffireworks
ontothetrackswhichexplodeuponlanding;causescalestofalldown,injuringPIssue
• WasPwithintherangeofRFforadutyshouldbeowed?Analysis/Rule
• Thereisareasonablelimitontheextensionofdutyinnegligentacts-iftheharmisnotwillful,thentheplaintiffmustprovethattheresultinginjuryresultedfromanapparentdangerinherentintheact
• “Ifnohazardwasapparenttotheeyeofordinaryvigilance,anactinnocentandharmless,atleastoutwardseeming,doesnottakeitselftothequalityofatortbecauseithappenedtobeawrong
RECURRINGSITUATIONS–VARIATIONSONREMOTENESS
THINSKULL
• ThinSkullDoctrine:Atortfeasortakeshisvictimashefindshim–iftypeofinjuryisforeseeablethentheextentofinjurydoesn’taffectliability.
SMITHVLEECHBRAIN[1962]QB
Facts• D’slipburntbymoltenmetal,treated,becomescancerousanddied.Lipwasalreadyinpre-cancerous
atthetimeofaccidentfromexposuretotarvaporsAnalysis/Rule
• Ifthedamageisreasonablyforeseeable,thescopeofthedamageisirrelevant–thinskulldoctrineapplies
o Itisnotthecasethatamanisliableonlyfortheextentofdamagewhichhecouldanticipate• Itwasreasonablyforeseeablethatsomeonemaygetaburnfromthatmoltenburntmetal,andthe
scopeofthedamage(thecanceranddeath)isirrelevantbecauseofthethinskulldoctrine(youtakethevictimastheyare)
EGGSHELLPERSONALITY
• Mentalsufferingflowingfromphysicalinjuryiscompensableunderthinskullo Oncedamageofaparticularkind[psychological]canbeforeseenthefactthatitarisesoris
continuedbyreasonofanunusualcomplexofeventsdoesnotavailthedefendant(MalcomvBroadhurst)
CRUMBLINGSKULL• CrumblingSkullDoctrine:IfthePhada“crumblingskull”(apredisposeddisease/condition),they
shouldnotbecompensatedtotheeffectofputtingtheminthepositiontothepositionofnon-crumblingskull(Athey)
26
• DdoesnothavetocompensatePfortheeffectsofadebilitatingpre-existingcondition
PSYCHIATRICDAMAGEW/OPHSYICALINJURY• Test:foreseeabilityofnervousshockorpsychiatricdamagetoareasonableCanadian(personwho
possessesreasonablerobustness&fortitude)• NecessaryforthePtobeendangeredthemselvesorwitnessaccident/aftermathwithunaidedsenses
(notthroughTV,radio,etc.)
DEVJIVBURNABY[1999]BCCA <aftermath>
Facts• Citydidnotproperlymaintainitsroads;Devjilosescontrolofvehicleandiskilled;familyisaskedto
identifythebody(notgruesome);seekingdamagesfornervousshockaspartofclaimAnalysis/Rule
• Psychiatricinjurymustbeacloseanddirectresultofanaccident;mustbemorethanthegrief,sorrowandlossthatnormallyfollowsdeath;itshouldamountto‘shock&horror’
• Thenatureoftheexperiencebywhichaninjuryisallegedtohavebeensufferedisoneofthe"controllingmechanisms"thatservetolimitthereachofliabilityfornervousshock
• ItwasnotRFthatpsychiatricinjurywouldflowfromD’snegligence;experienceofviewingthebodyinahospitalsettingcannotbeequatedto‘shock’and‘horror’
LEWVMOUNTSTJOSEPHHOSPITALSOCIETY[1997]BCSC <commofnews>
Facts• Pgoestovisitwifeinhospitalaftershewastogetroutinesurgery;anesthetist’snegligenceledtowife
sustainingcatastrophicbraininjury;DtoldPhiswifewasdyingandthathecouldgotoICUtoseeher;Pclaimingnervousshock/clinicaldepression
Issue• Canonebeliablefornegligentcommunicationofbadnews?
Analysis/Rule• “AftermathDoctrine”:onewhocomesimmediatelytothescenecanberegardedaswithinthescope
offoresightandduty• Shock-inducedpsychiatricdamageisforeseeableanddoesinfacteventuatethroughthenegligent
communicationofdistressinginformation
MUSTAPHAVCULLIGANWATER[2008]SCC
Facts• Decomposedflyinthewaterbottle.Pclaimspsychiatricdamage
Analysis/Ratio• Psychiatricdamagemustbea“real”foreseeablerisktoanordinarypersonofreasonablefortitude• CANADIANTEST:Isthispsychiatricdamagea“realrisk”thatwasreasonablyforeseeableasa
reasonablerobustCanadianoffortitude?o Whatneedstobereasonablyforeseeableisnervousshock(psychiatricdamage)
27
§ Nervousshock:recognizablepsychiatricillness;notmereupsetorannoyance,griefandsorrow
o Thelawwillnotimposeliabilityfortheexceptionalfrailtyofsomeindividuals• Succeedsonduty,breach,anddamage;failsoncausation–damageisnotconsistentwithwhatisRF
toapersonwithrobustfortitude
RESCUE&RESCUERS• CLduty:oncerescueisundertaken,thereisadutytoundertakeitnon-negligently(therescue-ee
becomesaforeseeableplaintiff,onewhoshouldbeintherescuer’scontemplationasbeinginjuredbycarelessness)
• Specialcommonlawaffirmativedutyowedbyprivatecarriertohispassengers• Rescuercanrecoverfromthesourceofthebreach
o Ifindividualputthemselvesinperil,ifitisRFthatsomeonewouldcomerescuethem,PowesthatpersonaDOC
o Ifa3rdparty(D)putPinperil,rescuercanrecoverfromD
HORSLEYVMACLAREN(OGOPOGOCASE)[1972]SCC
Facts• Passenger(Matthew)fallsoverboat;rescuer1triestodirectboattosave;2ndrescuerjumpsinand
diesofshockwhenbodyhitsicecoldwater;Matthewsbodydisappearsunderboat&isneverrecovered
Issue• DidDMcLaren’s(1strescuer/boatowner)firstnegligentrescuecreateasituationofperilthatinvited
Horsley’s(2ndrescuer)response?Analysis/Rule
• Dutyrequiresaconnectionbetweenspecificdefendantandcreationofperilo Ddoesnotneedtocreatesituationofperil
• Ifthenegligentrescuecreatesmoredanger,thenegligentrescueisabreachtotherescueeandabreachofyourdutytotheforeseeablesecondrescuer
INTERVENINGFORCES
• Iftheinterveningforceisareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceofthebreachandthedamageflowingfromit,itisnottooremote
SECONDACCIDENT
• A2ndaccidentwillnotbreakthechainifitiswithinthescopeoftheinitialactofnegligenceo Injurydoesnotstopatthemomentofthebreacho Considerationsofthedamagethatflowsfromorisassociatedwiththescopeofthatinjuryo Dutyofcontemplationextendstoreasonablecircumstancesexecutedbyareasonableperson
28
WIELANDVCYRILLORDCARPETS[1963]QB <liable>
Facts• P,whohadbeeninjuredbyD’snegligenceonabus,hadtowearacollararoundherneck;becauseof
thecollar,shecouldnotseeproperlyoutofherbifocalglasses,andfelldownstairs,furtheraggravatingherinjury
Issue• Wastheeventa"second(andseparate)accident”orwasitwithintheforeseeablescopeof
consequencesofthefirstevent?Analysis/Rule
• Itisnotnecessarytoforeseetheprecisemechanicsorchainofeventsinvolvedinthe2ndincident• Ifitis“foreseeablethatoneinjurymayaffectaperson’sabilitytocopewiththevicissitudesoflifeand
therebybeacauseofanotherinjury…foreseeabilityofthegeneralnaturewillsuffice”(butfor…)
MCKEWVHOLLAND[1969]HOL <notliable>
Facts• Leghadbeenweakenedinanaccident(breach)andgavewaysometimes;Pwasdescendingsteep
flightofstairs,feltlikelegwasgoingtogivewaysojumpedtoavoidfallingbutinsteadbrokehisankleAnalysis/Rule
• IfPactedunreasonablyandhisunreasonableconductisthecauseofthesecondinjury(novusactusinterveniens),theDwillnotbeheldliable–seversthechain.
• However,interveningnegligentactsgenerallywillnotnecessarilyrelievetheDliabilityofconsequences,ifthoseactsareaforeseeableconsequence
• 2ndactwasnotRFandPdidnotactreasonably;hadthelegsimplygivenoutandPsustainednewinjuries,argumentcouldbemadethatnewinjuriesflowedfromthefirstaccidentcausedbyD
MEDICALERROR
• Anerrorinmedicaltreatmentwillonlybeseenasanovusactusintervenienswhenthetreatmentisnegligent,suchthatthePcangetremediesfromthephysician(Mercer)
• Ifreasonablecareisusedbyacompetentphysician,eventhoughbyanerroraggravatesthedamages,theinitialDmayberesponsibleforthelaterinterveningactofamedicalerrorbecausemedicalmalpracticeisreasonablyforeseeable(MercervGray)
o Everytortfeasorcausinginjurytoapersonplacingtheminthepositionofseekingmedicalhelpmustassumetheinherentrisksofcomplications.(PappvLeclerc)
• TheonusisonDtoproveinterveningmedicalerrorwasnegligentinordertoescapeliability• Firstnegligentdoctorcouldbeliablefortheaggravationtoinjurycausedbysubsequentnegligentdoctorif
thatnegligencewasreasonable(Pricev.Milawksi)o Inthiscase,thenegligenceofthe2nddocdoesnotbreakthechainbecausethe2nddoctors’
negligencewasreasonablyforeseeable
29
NEGLIGENT,INTENTIONAL,&CRIMINALACTS
• Eveniftheinterveningactisofnegligence,intentional/criminalact–iftherewasadutytotakereasonablecare,theDmaystillbeliable(HarrisvTTC,Stansbie)
HARRISVTTC[1967]SCC <negligence>
Facts• Childsustainedinjuriesonbusbystickinghisarmoutthewindow,signsayingnottodothat;driver
pulledawayfromthestopnegligently,whichledtoP’sinjuryIssue
• Wasthechild’sdamagetooremotetobeRF?Analysis/Rule
• Ifone’snegligencecausestheinjury,theywillliable,especiallyiftheeventwasonethatwasRF–causalconnectionbetweenbreachanddamage
• Butforthedriverpullingawaynegligently,wouldthechildhavesustainedtheinjuries?
STANSBIEVTROMAN[1948]KB <criminalact>
Facts• Adecoratorleftclient’shouseunlocked,thiefbrokein
Issue• Wasthedecorator’snegligencethecauseofthetheft?
Analysis/Rule• Theactofnegligenceisthefailuretotakereasonablecaretoguardagainsttheverythingthat
happened
INTERMEDIATEEXAMINATION,WARNINGS&THELEARNEDINTERMEDIARY• Itemcannotbemanufacturednegligentlyandmanufacturerhasdutytowarnofdangers/risk
(Donoghue)• Why?Knowledgeimbalanceandreliance–consumerhasnowayofknowingalltherisksassociated
withanygivenproduct• Warningsmustbeexplicitandreasonablycommunicated(dependingondanger)• Dutytowarniscontinuous–notonlythedangersknownatthetimeofsalebutalsoaftertheproducthas
beensoldanddelivered• Whetherthelearnedintermediaryseversthechaininbreachquestionsisamatterofreasonable
foreseeabilityo WasitRFthatamanufacturer’sfailuretosatisfactorilywarnLIwouldcauseinjurytoX?o LI=fullyapprisedofrisks;wheretheyareaLI,solongastheyhavebeenwarned,
manufacturer’sdutyisdischarged
30
IVESVCLAREBROS[1971]ONHC <intermediateexamination,warning>
Facts• FurnacemanufacturedandinstalledbyCB,inspectedbyTwinCityGas;furnacedefective,PcallsTCG3
timesforrepairs,furnaceleakscausingdamagetoPAnalysis/Rule
• NegligenceonpartofbothCBandTCG–CBfornegligentlysupplyingadefectiveproduct,TCGforfailingtowarnPoftherisks,appreciatingseriouseffectsofthedefect,andremedyingthefurnace
o Inspectiondoesnotbreakchain
HOLLISVDOWCORNING[1995]SCC <warning,LI>
Facts• Pgotbreastimplants,LIdidnotwarnofpotentialcomplicationssuchasrupture,DdidnotwarnLIof
rupturepossibilitybutwasawareofriskAnalysis/Rule
• Manufacturerhasadutytowarnconsumerdirectly,butsometimesawarningtoaLImayreplacemanufacturer’sdutytosupplywarningdirectlytoconsumer
• LearnedIntermediaryRule:“Generally,theruleisapplicableeitherwhereaproductishighlytechnicalinnatureandisintendedtobeusedonlyunderthesupervisionofexperts,orwherethenatureoftheproductissuchthattheconsumerwillnotrealisticallyreceiveadirectwarningfromthemanufacturerbeforeusingtheproduct.”
• Breachhereisnotnegligence;itisfailureofthedutytowarn
DEFENCESTONEGLIGENCE
CONTRIBUTORYNEGLIGENCE
• NegligenceAct,Chapter333:Apportionmentofliabilityfordamages
o (1)Ifbythefaultof2ormorepersonsdamageorlossiscausedtooneormoreofthem,theliabilitytomakegoodthedamageorlossisinproportiontothedegreetowhicheachpersonwasatfault.
o (2)Despitesubsection(1),if,havingregardtoallthecircumstancesofthecase,itisnotpossibletoestablishdifferentdegreesoffault,theliabilitymustbeapportionedequally.
o (3)Nothinginthissectionoperatestomakeapersonliablefordamageorlosstowhichtheperson'sfaulthasnotcontributed.
• 3waysinwhichPcancontributingtotheirowninjuries:i. contributingtotheeventwhichcausedtheinjuriesii. exposingthemselvestoariskofbeinginvolvedinaninjuriouseventiii. failingtotakereasonableprecautionstominimizeinjuries(shouldtheinjuriousevent
occur)–“seatbeltdefence”
31
GALASKEVO’DONNELL[1994]SCC <seatbeltdefence>
Facts• P,age8,andfatherwereinD’scar;Pnotwearingseatbelt,accidenthappenscausingPtosustain
injuriesbecausehewasnotwearingaseatbelt;PclaimingD’snegligenceinnotensuringseatbeltswerefastened
Analysis/Rule• Duty:Adriverofacarowesadutytoallofhispassengerstotakereasonablestepstoprevent
foreseeableinjurieso Forpassengersunder16,“reasonablecare”meansensuringthattheywearseatbeltso Presenceofparentinthecarmaymeanthatresponsibilityissharedbutdoesnotnegatethe
dutyowedtopassengersunder16• Passengersover16hasadutytothemselvestowearaseatbeltandthefailuretodosowillresultin
anassessmentofcontributorynegligence(YuanvFarstad)
VOLUNTARYASSUMPTIONOFRISK(VOLENTINONFITINJURIA)
• “Thevolunteerknowsnoinjury”–completedefencewhensuccessfulo DoctrineofVolentimeans:
a) Pagrees,expresslyorimpliedly,tobeartheinjuriousconsequencesoftheD’snegligentconduct–youareagreeingtothenegligenceoftheD
b) ThattheDisrelievedofanydutyofcaretothePinrespecttotheparticularriskofharm• Whatisrequiredis“agenuineinferencethattheplaintiffconsentednotmerelytotheriskofinjury,
buttothelackofreasonablecarewhichmayproducethatrisk”o PisconsentingtothebreachofDOCifitistoarise
HAMBLEYVSHEPLEY[1967]OCA <policeofficers>
Facts• Claimbypolicemanforpersonalinjurieshesustainedwhileonthejob
Issue• Doesdoctrineofvolentiapplytothoseinjuriessustainedinthedischargeofapublicduty?
Analysis/Rule• No–policeofficerdoesnotconsenttothenegligenceofotherssimplybecausehe“persistsin
employmentinfullawarenessofrisk”• VolentinolongerprotectsemployerfromCLliabilitytoanemployeewho,incarryingouthisdutiesof
employment,isinjuredbecauseofanunsafeworkingsystemofwhichheisaware
CROCKERVSUNDANCE[1988]SCC <sports,waivers>
Facts• ResortallowsPtoparticipateinatubingcontest,despitebeingvisiblyundertheinfluenceofalcohol;P
getsinjuredAnalysis/Rule
• Crocker’sparticipationcannotbeviewedasvoluntaryassumptionofrisk;alcoholwasinvolvedthusimpossibletoconcludeheassumedlegalrisk
32
• Contractualwaiverclausecanserveasafulldefenceintorto BUT,Pmustbeawareofwhattheyaresigningandcomprehendit
ILLEGALITY(EXTURPICAUSA)
• Ifoneisengagedinillegalactivities,theycannotsueanotherfordamagesthatariseoutoftheirownillegalactivity
• Purpose:preventPsfromprofiting/benefittingofftheirillegalactivity
HALLVHEBERT[1993]SCC
Facts• P&Ddrivinghomefromparty,bothintoxicated;D’scarstalls,PgetsbehindwheeltohelpDrollcar;P
losescontrol,carflips;suingDforinjuryIssue
• Underwhatcircumstancesshouldtheimmoralorcriminalconductofaplaintiffbartheplaintifffromrecoveringdamagestowhichheorshewouldotherwisebeentitled?
Analysis/Rule• Exturpidoesnotapply:Pisnottryingtoprofitfromillegalconduct,butclaimingdamagesas
compensationforhisinjuries
BCVZASTOWNY[2008]SCC
Facts• Psexuallyassaultedbyprisonofficialwhileinprison;afterrelease,becameheroinaddictandrepeat
offender;PallegessexualassaultcontributedtoP’ssubsequentdifficultiesIssue
• Dorecoverabledamagesincludelostincomeduringperiodsofincarceration?Analysis/Rule
• No–exturpicausadoctrinebarsrecoveryfortimespentinprisono Acivilawardofdamageswould“constitutearebateofthenaturalconsequencesofbreaking
thecriminallaw”;notrationaltocompensateapersonforhispunishmentundercriminallaw
EXCLUSIONCLAUSES
• ContractualwaiverclausecanserveasafulldefencetoaclaimintortbuttheymustbedrawntotheP’sattentionwhentheyareinastatecapableofcomprehension(Crocker)
LIABILITYOFPUBLICAUTHORITIES
PROCEEDINGSAGAINSTTHECROWN
• s.(2)CrownProceedingAct:createsliabilityfortheCrownasifitwereapersono Govtsubjecttosamelawsascitizens
33
NEGLIGENCELIABILITYOFSTATUTORYPUBLICAUTHORITIES
• StatutoryPublicAuthorities:havetheirpowerprescribedtothembystatutesthatallowsthemtoexercisefunctionsinthepublicinterest
o Entailsbothpolicyandoperational/implementationfunctionso SPAareandoughttobevicariouslyliablefortortscommittedbytheiremployeesifthe
employee’sactwouldbetortiousifcommittedbyaprivateactor• DOCinnegligencemaybederivedfrombothastatutoryduty(operationalfunctions)andstatutory
power(policy-makingfunctions)• Alwayschecklanguageofstatutes!Somemightexplicitlyexemptduties• CooperarticulatesAnnstestinpublicauthority
o Step1:EstablishingaPFDOC(a.RFofharm,b.proximity–a“close&direct”relationshipbetweentheparties(thinkHill),factorsincludereliance,expectations,andrepresentations)
§ Waswhattheyweredoingapolicyoranoperationalfunction?o Step2:Residualpolicyconsiderations(whetheranyRPCsoutsiderelationshipbetweenparties
justifiesnegatingDOC
1.PROXIMITY:PFDOC
TAYLORVCANADA[2012]ONCA <proximity>
Facts• TMJimplantinsertedintoP;causesdamage;PclaimsHealthCanadafailedtopreventagainst
importationandsaleofimplants,regulateandmonitortheirsale,warnLIandconsumersaboutdangersandrisks
Issue• Whethertherepresentation&relianceontheregulators’publicdutiesareessentialtoafindingofa
PFprivatelawDOC?Rule
• Thetermsofthelegislationitselfwill“announce”whetheraprivatelawdutyofcarewasintendedo Wherenotdeterminative(onewayortheother),factorssuchasinteraction,natureof
powers/duties,willbeconsidered• Statutesarecreatedasadutytothepublicakaeveryoneatlarge,butinsomecases,thefactorsof
proximityaresocompellingandintense(ex.CanadianHill)thattheargumentforproximitycanbemadeout
o Sometimes,theymayconflictwithaprivatedutyowedtojustyou,inwhichcasethelegislativedutyowedtoeveryonetakespriority
Analysis:• Taylorpartofasmall,definedclass(likeDoe),andwhileHChadfailedtocorrectmisrepresentations
madeaboutthesafetyoftheimplants,therewasnotacloseanddirectrelationshipbetweenthe2• PAfailedtoacttoprotectthelifeandsafetyofindividualswhenfixedw/knowledgeofaclear&
presentdangertoadiscreteandidentifiablesegmentofthecommunity• However,findingadutytothisclasisnotinconsistentw/themoregeneraldutyowed
34
• NotsufficientevidencetoestablishproximitythatgivesrisetoaPFprivatelawDOCNB:ProximityFactors
• ThenatureofrepresentationsmadebyaPAandthenatureofanyrelianceplacedonthoserepresentationsbyParepartofthefactualandlegalcircumstancestobeconsideredindeterminingtheproximityoftherelationshipbetweenthetwo
• RepresentationsmadespecificallytoPandreliedoncouldcreateadirectconnectionbetweenthePAandthePsufficienttosupportafindingofaprivatelawDOC
• GeneralrepresentationsmadebyPAtothepublicandreliedonbythePcannot,ontheirown,createadirectproximaterelationship
o But!Withotherfactors,couldgiverisetoarelationshipbetweenthetwothatissufficientlycloseanddirecttoestablishaPFprivatelawDOCowedtoP
FULLOKWAVPINKERTON[2010]SCC <DOCowed,nobreach>
Facts:• duringastrike,protestorssetanexplosive,killed9miners;survivors+widowssuingPinkerton’s,the
securitycompanyhiredbytheowners;P’sclaim:failuretoprotectminersfromdangerbytheprotestors
Issue:DoesthegovtofCanoweaDOCtothefamilyoftheminers?
Analysis:• Proximityfactors:
o Minersareasmall&clearlydefinedgroupo Inspectorshadclose&directpersonalcontextw/miners(notasparticularasinHill,butnotas
diffuseinHobart)o Inspectorshadastatutorydutytoinspectmine,ceaseworkiffoundunsafe
• Close&directrelationshipbetweeninspectors&minersgiverisetoaPFDOC• GovdidnotbreachtheirSOCbecausetheyreliedonlegaladvicenottoclosethemine
BCVIMPERIALTOBACCO[2005]SCC
Facts:• (1)IT+13othertobaccocompaniessuedbyprovinceforrecoveryofhealthcarecostsrelatedto
treatmentoftobaccorelatedillnesses(claimsbroughtunderTobaccoDamagesandHealthCareCostsRecoveryAct)
• (2)KnightvIT–actionbroughtbyclassofconsumersrecostsoflowtarcigarettes
NB:PAliabilitycasebecauseinturn,thetobaccocompaniesaresuinggovofCanadafortheirnegligentmisrepresentations(contributions)toconsumers+tobaccocoslowtarcigarettesarelessharmful
Analysis:• AnnsBranch1–Factorsoutsideofstatutecreatingproximity?
o Toconsumers,no-more“direct”interactionsrequired.
35
o Companies,yes(interactionsincludedhelpindesigning,promotinglowtarcigarettes;Canadainadvisorrole;commercialrelationship)–PFDOCestablished
• AnnsBranch2–residualpolicyconsiderations?o Discretionaloneisnotenoughtomakenon-reviewablepolicy–onlytrue/corepolicydecisions
(asasubsetofdiscretionary)areprotected(ex.macromatterslikeairsafety)§ Whatarethese?“discretionarylegislativeoradministrativedecisions/conductthatare
groundedinsocial,economic&politicalconsiderations”generallymadeby“legislatorsorofficerswhoseofficialresponsibilityrequiresthemtoassessorbalancepublicresponsibilities”(USSC,Gaubert)
o Inthiscase,encouragingsmokerstoswitchtolessharmfullowtarcigarettesisapolicydecisionadoptedatthehighestlevel
§ representationsmadetocompaniesandconsumers,evenifinaccurate,“part&parcel”ofthispolicy;thus,representationscouldnotattracttortliability
TRESPASS
Wrongfulness:directinterferencew/personorproperty;Ponlyneedstomakealaconicplea(showthatinterferencewasdirect)toestablishaPFcaseoftrespass;onusthenswitchestoDtoprovetheinterferencewasnotwrongful(intentionalornegligent)
Iftrespassestablished,alldamagesfromitarerecoverable(noneedtodemonstrateRF)
GOSHENVLARIN[1974]NSCA <laconicplea>
Facts:• D,anunpopularref,wasgettingstuffthrownathim,tryingtoexitarena;bumpsintoP,whoallegesD
pushedhim,causingdamage;Psuingforbattery,claiminginjurywasdirectRule:
• Inanactionfordamagesintrespass,wherethePprovesthathehasbeeninjuredbythedirectactoftheD,theonusfallsupontheDtoprovethathisactwasbothunintentional&w/onegligence
COOKVLEWIS[1952]SCC <hunting>
Facts:• 2huntersshootingguns;notknownwhichoneinjuredP;acknowledgedthatwhoeveractuallyshotP
wasnegligent–itwasnegligenttoshootatthetreedareawherethePwasstandingRule:
• WhereaPisinjuredbyforceapplieddirectlytohim,hiscaseismadebyprovingthefact• OnusthenfallsuponDtoprovethatsuchtrespasswasutterlywithouthisfault
DAHLBERGVNAYDIUK[1965]MANCA <hunting>
Facts:• Farmershotbyhunters
Analysis:• AppliesCvLtest
36
• Policyjustificationinthiscase:“huntersmustrecognisethatfiringoverlandw/opermissionoftheownerconstitutesatrespasstoland&,ifinjuryresults,trespasstoperson….Ifahunterchoosestohuntinafarmingarea,hemustdosoinfullawarenessoftheparamountrightofthefarmertocarryonhisbusinessw/oriskofinjuryfromstraybullets”
NON-MARINEUNDERWRITERS,LLOYD'SOFLONDONV.SCALERA[2000]SCC <sexualbattery>
Facts:• Actionagainst5BCtransitdriversforallegationsofsexualassault;Dhadinsurancepolicywhich
providedcompensatorycoverageforbodilyinjuryarisingfromtheinsured'spersonalactions,excepting"bodilyinjuryorpropertydamagecausedbyanyintentionalorcriminalact"
• PseekingdeclarationthattheyhavenodutytodefendtheDintheallegationsAnalysis:
• ReaffirmslaconicpleatoestablishPFcaseintrespass• Whenapersoninterfereswiththebodyofanother,aPFcaseofviolationofP’sautonomyismadeout• Compensationstemsnotfromfault,butfromviolationoftherighttopersonalautonomy
ASSAULT
• Intentionalcreationofareasonableapprehension(threat)ofimminentharm(Tuberville)o NoproofofphysicaldamageisrequiredbuttheP’sfearorapprehensionofimminentharm
mustbereasonable(BrucevDyer)
BRUCEVDYER[1966]ONHC <reasonableapprehension>
Facts:• PcutoffDonhwy;getintoafight,DpunchedP’sjaw;claimingself-defence:P’sconductconstituted
anassault(shakingoffist,blockinghiscarin)Rule:
• Reasonableapprehensionrequirement:“thereneedbenoactualintentionorpowertouseviolence;itisenoughifP,onreasonablegrounds,believesthatheisindangerofit”
Analysis:• Self-defenceapplies;PcommittedinitialassaultonDwhenheblockedD’scar(Ptookactivesteps)• Dwasjustifiedindefendinghimselffromtheassaultimposedonhim
MAINLANDSAWMILLSVUSWLOCAL1-3567[2007]BCSC <imminentthreats>
Facts:• Labourdispute;LocalAreturnstowork,LocalBdoesnot&upsetLocalAhas;MembersofLocalB
congregateinLocalA’smillyard,someenteredmill,somecarriedsticks.Accountssaytheywere“noisyandintimidating,”preventedworkersfornextshiftfromentering
Rule:• Preventingsomeonefromdoingthatwhichtheyarelegallyentitledtodomaysatisfytheimminent
apprehensionrequirements
37
o Ie.JustbecauseapersoncanavoidimminentharmdoesnotmakeDnotliableforassault(ex.guntoyourhead,“yourmoneyoryourlife”–choosingmoneyavoidsthethreattoyourlife)
• Wordsdonotmakeanactorliableforassault,unless,combinedw/otheracts/circumstances,theyputtheotherinreasonableapprehensionofanimminentharmfuloroffensivecontactwiththeirperson
o “Athreatofviolencewhichexhibitsanintentiontoassaultandapresentabilitytocarryoutthethreatwillconstituteassault”
WARMANVGROSVENOR[2008]ONSC <reasonableapprehension>
Facts:• PsuingDfordefamation,assault&invasionofprivacyforinternetblogposts;Dpostedthingssuchas:
“he’sadeadjewwalking,”“faggoty-looking,”“Ihaveagunanditsbulletshaveyournameonthem…”Rule:
• Frightening/threateningsomeonedoesnotconstituteanassaultunlesstheeventfearedisimminentAnalysis
• Pisreasonablyapprehensiveofimminentphysicalcontact–Drepeatedlypostedandemailedthreats• Pentitledtodamagesforassault
BATTERY
Trespasstotheperson;protectstheinterestinbodilysecurityfromdeliberateinterferencebyothers
COLEVTURNER[1998]US <rule>
Rule:1. Touchingofanotherinangerisabattery2. Touchingeachothergently,withoutanyviolenceorharm≠battery3. Ifeitherusesviolenceorforceagainsttheotherinrudeinordinatematter,closertobattery
COLLINSVWILCOCK[1984]UK <ordinaryconduct>
Rule:• Fundamentalprincipleisthateveryperson’sbodyisinviolate;anytouchingofanotherperson,
howeverslight,mayamounttoabattery• Physicalcontactacceptedinordinaryconductisnotbattery(ex.brushingsomeoneonabusystreet)
BETTELVYIM[1978]ONHC <foreseeability>
Facts:• PthrowingmatchesintoD’sstore,setsitonfire;DgrabsP,startsshakinghim,accidentallyhead-butts
P’snose;DhadnointentiontoinjureP,purposeinshakingwastogetaconfessionRule:
• Ifphysicalcontactwasintended,thefactthatitsmagnitudeexceededallreasonableorintendedexpectationsshouldmakenodifference
o Intentionalwrongdoershouldbearresponsibilityfortheinjuriescausedbytheirconducto Butnoliabilityforpureaccident!
38
SEXUALWRONGDOING
Unwantedsexualcontact=sexualbattery;mayconstituteassault&intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress
NORBERGVWYNRIB <powerimbalance>
Facts:• P,patientaddictedtopainkillers;performssexualfavoursonthedoctorforpills;allegessexualbattery
Rule:• Consentcanbevitiatedifimpairedbypowerimbalanceandexploitation
MKVMH <fiduciaryduty>
Facts:• Incestvictimsuesherfatherfor18yearsofongoingabuse;bringingcase15yearslater
Rule/Analysis:• Incestfoundtobeabatteryandabreachoffiduciaryduty
o Parentowesafiduciarytotheirchildandexploitingthemisadirectbreachofthat• LimitationsProblem:“reasonablediscoverability”approachapplied–thenatureofeventmadeit
reasonablethatPwouldnothavediscoveredtheconnectionbetweentheevent&thedamagepriortoatimethatplaceditw/ilimitations
NB:LimitationAct,s,8:exceptforspecialsituationsreferredtoins.9-11,aclaimisdiscoveredbyapersononthefirstdayonwhichthepersonkneworreasonablyoughttohaveknownthat:
a) injury,lossordamagehadoccurred;b) theinjury,lossordamagewascausedbyorcontributedtobyanactoromission;c) theactoromissionwasthatofthepersonagainstwhomtheclaimisormaybemade;d) that,havingregardtothenatureoftheinjury,lossordamage,acourtproceedingwouldbean
appropriatemeanstoseektoremedytheinjury,lossordamage.ExemptedClaims:
a) aclaimrelatingtomisconductofasexualnature,including,withoutlimitation,sexualassault,i. ifthemisconductoccurredwhiletheclaimantwasaminor,andii. whetherornottheclaimant'srighttobringthecourtproceedingwasatanytimegovernedby
alimitationperiod;b) aclaimrelatingtosexualassault,whetherornottheclaimant'srighttobringthecourtproceedingwas
atanytimegovernedbyalimitationperiod;c) aclaimrelatingtoassaultorbattery,whetherornottheclaimant'srighttobringthecourtproceeding
wasatanytimegovernedbyalimitationperiod,iftheassaultorbatteryoccurredwhiletheclaimanti. wasaminor,orii. waslivinginanintimateandpersonalrelationshipwith,orwasinarelationshipoffinancial,
emotional,physicalorotherdependencywith,apersonwhoperformed,contributedto,consentedtooracquiescedintheassaultorbattery;
39
FALSEIMPRISONMENT
Toestablish,Pmustshow:1. Thattheyweretotallydeprivedofliberty(orreasonablybelievedsuch)2. Deprivationwasagainsttheirwill(noconsent)3. DintentionallycausedtheP’sbodilyrestraint(canbepsychological,physical,ormaterial)
Oncetheelementsareshown,theonusshiftstotheDtojustifythedetention,eitheratCLorbystatute.
NB:NegligentFIispossible;requiresactualinjuryforrecovery(ex.accidentallylockingsomeoneinafreezer)
BIRDVJONES <totalrestraint>
Facts:• Ppreventedfromproceedingindesireddirectionalongpublicfootwayonabridge,althoughhe“was
atlibertytomovehispersonandgoinanyotherdirection,athisfreewill&pleasure;noactualforceorrestraintonhispersonwasused”
Holding:• Nofalseimprisonment
Rule:RestraintRequirement
• Therestraintofmovementmustbetotal,ifonlymomentarily(psychological,physical,ormoral)• TherestraintisnottotalifthereisareasonablemeansofescapeleftopentotheP
o Ex.ifshutinaroomfromwhichonecaneasilyexitw/odanger–noimprisonment,evenifonemustcommitaminortrespasstoescape
o Ifsomeoneblocksyourroutebutthereisanalternateyoucantake–noimprisonmentPsychological,MoralRestraint
• ‘Restraint’forFIpurposesmaybeimposedbybarriersorotherphysicalmeans,byanimplicit/explicitthreatofforce,orbyanassertionoflegalauthority
• Pwhoreasonablyperceivesthatforcemaybeemployedisimprisonedifdecidingtosubmitandnottoriskviolence
• “Moralpressure”mayalsoconstitute‘restraint’∴‘imprisonment’aswhereaPsubmitstoD’sactsforfearofpublicembarrassment
• Touchisnotrequired-thekeyiswhethertherehasbeenanassertionof&submissiontocontrol
CHAYTORETALVLONDON <psychological>
Facts:• StoremanageraccusesPsofbeingsuspicious;Psgow/policetoavoid‘embarrassment’&because
theyfeltcompelled;detainedfor15minsatstationbeforebeingreleased;suedstoreforFI–SMcauseddetention
Analysis:• Penteredandremainedin‘imprisoned’situationbecausetheyfeltpsychologicallycompelledtodoso
40
• ByDactingthewayhedid,heeffectivelycreatedapsychologicaltypeofimprisonment• ThisFIcausedfalsearrest:Dcauseddetentionbyprovidingfalseinfo,POsactingonbasisofinfow/o
exerciseofdiscretion–doesnotbreakcausalchainFALSEIMPRISONMENTVFALSEARREST
• FIwillfollowafalsearrest(whereapersonhasnotbeenlawfullyarrested)o Ex.Pis‘falselyarrested’fortheactofthePOarrestinghim,and‘falselyimprisoned’when
placedinthebackofthecopcar• FI&FAmustbedirectlycausedbytheD• WhereFA&FIaretheresultoftheexerciseofjudicialinterventionordiscretion,thatchainisbroken
–maybeabletoshowmaliciousprosecutionornegligence(Hill)
AWARENESS• PersoncanbeFIw/obeingaware(ex.whentheyareasleep,unconscious,orotherwiseoblivious)• Principleinplacetoprotectchildren,mentallydisabled• Confinementcanbecausedbyfailuretoact(ex.notfreeingaprisoneraftertheirterm,LebarvCAN)
HVAVLYNCH <continuousconsent>
Facts:• Psychiatricpatientsayssheexpressedherwishtoleave,notinformedthatshehadnotbeen
committed;treatingphysiciansclaimtheyreasonablybelievedshewasconsentingtotreatmentRule:
• Ifconsentiscontinuousandnotwithdrawn,thereisnofalseimprisonmentAnalysis:
• NoevidencethatDatanytimefalselyimprisonedP• Consentneverended&theytookappropriatestepstocareforPduringmanifestationsofhermental
illness,asshehadconsentedtouponadmittance&thereaftermaintained• PdidnotmeetBOPforestablishingFI
HERDVWEARDALESTEEL <initialconsent>
Facts:• Minerdemandedtobebroughtupbeforetheendofaworkday
Rule:• Ifsomeoneentersasituationofconfinementoncertainunderstoodterms,thatpersoncannotinsist
onbeingreleasedwhenevertheychooseo Ex.apassengercannotdemandtoleaveatrainbetweenstations
NB:similarly,apersonistakentohaveagreedtobedetainedtoundergoasearchatanairport,ifthatisthenormalprocedureorareasonablenoticetothateffectisposted
41
TRESPASSTOLAND
Aninterferencewiththeowner’srightofexclusivepossession,w/otheowner’spermission
• Occurswhenoneentersontosomeoneelse’sspace(air,surface,subsurface)w/olawfuljustificationo Pmusthaveexclusive,possessionorrightofpossessiono DoctrineofTrespassbyRelation:permitsaPw/onlyanimmediaterighttopossession(not
actuallyinpossession)whenthetrespassoccurred,tosueintrespassforthatintrusiononcehesubsequentlyacquirespossession;mostfrequentlyinvokedincasesinvolvingvacantland
§ Righttopossessionmustbeimmediate(CoopervCrabtree)• Ex.LLcannotbringaTTL,onlytenantcan;LLdoesnothaverighttopossession
• BOPisonDtoshowthattheyhadpermission/consent(Pjusthastomakelaconicplea)• Noproofofactualdamageisnecessary;canbeintentionalornegligent
TRESASSACT
• Purposeoflegislation:minimizeincidentsoftrespassthroughrequirementsofsignageandprovisionsdealingwithenclosedland
• Clarifiesthatsurveyorswhoenterlandforpurposeofsurveyingwillnotbetrespassing
Trespassprohibited4(1)Subjectto4.1,apersoncommitsanoffenceiftheydoanyofthefollowing: (a)enterpremisesthatareenclosedland;
(b)enterpremisesafterthepersonhashadnoticefromanoccupierofthepremisesoranauthorizedpersonthattheentryisprohibited;(c)engagesinactivityonorinpremisesafterthepersonhashadnoticefromanoccupierofthepremisesoranauthorizedpersonthattheactivityisprohibited.
(2)Apersonfoundonorinpremisesthatareenclosedlandispresumednottohavetheconsentofanoccupieroranauthorizedpersontobethere.
HARRISONVCARSWELL(MB) <legislatedtrespass>
Facts:• Dpicketingpeacefullyinamall;ownerofmalltoldDtostoporbechargedw/trespass
Issue/Holding:• Didtheownerofthemallhavesufficientpossessionoverthecommonareastopresscharges?• Yes,ownerhasprivatepropertyrightsdespitetheunrestrictedinvitationtothepublictoenteronto
thepremisesRule/Analysis:
• MBlegislationprovidesthatapersoncommitsatrespasswhentheydon’tleaveafterbeingdirectedtodosobythe‘occupier’
• PossessiondoesnotceasetobeexclusivesolongasthereistherighttocontrolentryoftheGPo P,asowner&occupier,hadnotrelinquishedthatrightofcontrol
42
WILDWOODMALLVSTEVENS(SASK) <nolegislatedtrespass>
Facts:• Unionmemberspicketinginamall;P,ownerofmall,seekinganinjunctiontorestrainactivity• DistinguishedfromHarrison–SaskhaslawsprohibitingtrespasslikeMB
Rule/Holding:• Themostthatcanbesaidistherespondentexercisescontroloverthepremisesbutdoesnotexercise
thatcontroltotheexclusionofotherpersons.• PcannotmaintainanactionintrespassagainstD
TREETRESPASS
• Ifbranchescrossthepropertyline,nomatterhowslightly,itisatrespass• Propertyownerhastherighttoprunethembacktothepropertylinew/ogivingnoticetothe
neighbourwhoownsthetreesNB:notclearwhathappensifpruningsubsequentlyleadstothedeathofthetree,but“itisnowacceptedthroughoutCLthatanobligationrestsoneveryonetotakereasonablecarenottocauseneedlessinjurytothepropertyofothers”(AndersonvSkender)
TURNERVTHORNE[1960]ONHC <continuedpresence>
Facts:• Deliverypersonmistakenlywenttowronghouse,noonehome,openedP’sgarage&leftpackages
there;whenPcamehome,hetrippedovertheboxes,sustaininginjuriesRule/Analysis:
• Atrespassmaybecommittedbythecontinuedpresenceontheland,whichtheactorhastortiously(throughtrespass)placedthereon,despitewhethertheactorcanremoveit
• Byenteringthegarage,Dcommittedatrespass;continuedforaslongastheboxeswerethere• Innocentmistakeisnotadefencetotrespassanditsconsequences.
o Trespassertolandisliablefordirect&indirectpersonalinjuriesresultingfromtrespass
INTENTIONALTORTS
Wrongfulness:tortactionsdealingw/intentionalinterferencesw/persons,theirchattels&theirlando Needstobedirect&forcibleinterferences;actionablew/oproofofdamage
INTENTIONALINFLICTIONOFMENTALSUFFERING
Elements:1. D’sspecificactswereextreme,flagrantoroutrageous2. Specificactswerecalculatedtoproduceharm(“someeffectofthekindthatwasproduced”)toan
ordinaryperson(unlessspecialknowledge)3. Specificactscausedharm
43
o “harm”mustbe“recognisablephysicalorpsychopathologicalharm”;“visibleandprovableillness”(notmereupset)
WILKINSONVDOWNTON <practicaljoke>
Facts:• Asa‘joke,’DtoldPthatherhusbandwasgravelywoundedinanaccident;Psufferedaviolentshock
tohernervoussystemcausedbyjokeRule/Analysis:
• DhaswillfullydoneanactcalculatedtocausephysicalharmtoP–toinfringeherlegalrighttopersonalsafety,andhasinfacttherebycausedphysicalharmtoher
o Physicalharminthiscasemeansmentalsuffering
DEFENCESTOTRESPASS&INTENTIONALTORTS
CONSENT
• Ifindividualsconsenttotheintentionalinvasionoftheirinterests,theywillbeprecludedfromrecoveringanydamagesintortfromthatresult
• Basedonthepresumptionofautonomy&freewill;presumedthattheindividualhasfreedomtoconsentornot
• OnusisonDtoestablishthefactswhichwillprovidevalidconsent• Maybegivenexplicitly(verbal/writing)orimplicitly(throughparticipationinacertainevent,
demeanourorotherbehaviour)o Consentisanincorporealthing;writtenconsentmaybeevidenceofthis,butisnottheconsent
itself§ Writtenconsentcanbevitiatedbyfraud,duress,orlackofcapacity
IMPLIEDCONSENT
• Consentmustbetakenasgrantedunlesstheactorknew(oroughttohaveknown)thatconsenthasbeenwithheld
o Ex.notbatterytotouchsomeonetogetattn.,theoryisintheordinaryusesofsociety–pplhaveconsentedtoordinarycontact)
• Determiningimpliedconsentisdoneonafactualbasis–isthisthekindofactivitywhichwouldordinarilybeunderstoodbysocietyingeneralasonetowhichweallgenerallyconsent?
• Consentmayalsobeimpliedfromanindividualplaintiff’sactsorfrompastbehavior(O’BrienvCunard)
O’BRIENVCUNARDCOMASSACHUSETTS <implied>
Facts:• PonshipgoingtoBoston,whichhasstrictquarantinerestrictionsonsmallpox;incomersneeded
certificateofvaccinationtobepermittedonland;signspostedallovership;on-boarddocvaccinatedP;Pclaimingnoconsent,battery
Rule:• Ifaperson’sbehaviourisindicativeofconsent,Disjustifiedintheiractofinterference
44
• Dcanbeguidedbyaperson’sovertactsormanifestationsoffeelingstoimplyconsentAnalysis:
• Impliedconsent–noticesaroundtheship,Pstayedinline,saidnothingabouthavingnowishtobevaccinated,heldupherarmtobevaccinated,tookthevaccinationticket
NON-MARINEUNDERWRITERSVSCALERA <sexualactivity>
Facts:• Pengagesinsexualactivityw/busdrivers;claimingsexualbattery,noconsent;Dadmitstoeventsbut
arguesimpliedconsentRule:
• Consentisnotimpliedunlessconductis“generallytobeexpectedinhurlyburlyofdailylife”o Sexualactivitydoesnotfitinthiscategory
• Pdoesnotneedtoprovelackofconsent;DhasBOPofdemonstratingconsent
NORBERGVWYNRIB <vitiatedconsent>
Facts:• Paddictedtopainkillers,consensuallyperformssexualfavoursondocformore;Dchargedw/sexual
batteryRule:
• Consentisvitiatedinrelationshipsofpowerimbalanceandexploitation
CONSENTINTHESPORTINGCONTEXT
• Exampleofimpliedconsent• Personistakentohaveconsentedtotheordinaryrisksofasportinwhichtheyareengaged• However,“somelimitmustbeplacedonaplayer’simmunityfromliability”(AgarvCanning)
o Consentistotherisksofthesportconductedw/fairplay&goodtemper§ Notthesamethingastherules!Evenifrulesareviolated,ifsuchviolationiscommon,
andinaccordancewithfairplay,consentwillnothavebeenexceeded• Intentionalactstocauseseriousharmwillnotbeimmunizedasimpliedconsent
CHARLANDVCLOVERDALEMINORBASEBALLASSN <mutualconsent>
Facts:• Consensualfightbetween2fathersatchildren’speeweebaseballgame;1fatherallegingbattery,
assaultRule:
• Ifafightisproventobemutualorconsensual,partiescannotcomplainofinjuriessufferedduringthefightunlessforceusedwasexcessive,unnecessaryorofself-defence
CONSENTINTHEMEDICALCONTEXT
� Doctormustnottreatortouchapatientwithouttheirconsent,whichmustbereal,true&valid
45
� Personmayrefusetoacceptmedicaltreatmentevenifitresultsindeatho Doctorcannotprovidetreatmentagainstaperson’swill,howeverbeneficialitmightbe
� Ifapersoniscapableofgivingconsent,itmustbeobtained� NextofkinconsentisrelevantonlyifpatientisNOTcapableofgivingconsent(legislation-HCCAinBC)� Doctorscanrelyondefenceofnecessityinemergencysituations(Malette)� Consentmaybedoneexplicitly(verballyorinwriting)orimplicitlythroughbehaviourorpre-treatment
conversationso Ex.Patientcomingtodoctor’sofficefortreatmentimpliessomemeasureofconsenttobeing
examined,althoughapatientmayexpresslylimitthescopeofhisconsenttowhathappens
MALETTEVSHULMAN[1990]ONCA <advanceinstructions>
Facts:• P:Jehovah’sWitness,injuredincaraccident;D,doctor,awareofP’sJWstatus,whichforbidsblood
transfusion;diditanyways;PsuingforbatteryRule:
• Doctorisnotfreetodisregardadvanceinstructionsinanymorethathecandisregardinstructionsgivenatthetimeofemergency
• Doctorsmustnottreatpatientsw/oconsentunlessitisanemergency:1. Patientisunconsciousorw/ocapacitytomakeadecision2. Timeisoftheessence3. Underthecircumstances,RPwouldconsent&theprobabilitiesarethatthepatientwouldtoo
MARSHALLVCURRY[1933] <emergency>
Facts:• Testicleremovedduringherniaoperation;Pconsentedtoherniaop,nottesticleremoval;Dclaimsit
wasnecessary,matteroflifeordeathAnalysis:
• Impliedconsentinanemergencysituationappliedhere• Removalwasfoundtobenecessary–postponingremovalwasunreasonable
SELF-DEFENCE
• Completedefenceifestablished• SDisnodefenceiftheresponseisnotimmediateorproportionatetothethreat(Cockcroft)• Threatmustbereal,warrantingdefensiveaction(MacDonaldvHees)• Personneedstoretreatifpossible
46
REDDEMANNVMCEACHNIE[2005]BCSC
Facts:• R,mascotforCCJrHockeyClub,attendedgameasspectator;M,volunteerAss.Trainerforother
team,sittinginbenchinfrontofR;Rwasbangingadrum,makingitdifficultforMtohearcoach’sinstructions;MallegingR’sdrumstickstruckhimsohepulledRovertheglass,punchedRrepeatedly;
• RdeniesstrikingM,claimingbattery;Mallegingself-defenceRule
• SDisananswertoaclaimforassaultbutonlywhentheforceusedwasnotunreasonableinthecircumstances
• RighttostrikebackinSDproceedsfromnecessity:personassaultedhasarighttohitbackindefenceofhimself,hispropertyorhisway
o But,theyhavenorighttouseexcessiveforce–cannotstrikebackindefenceofhiswayifthereisawayaround
Holding:• Nofindingoftrespassorprovocation;eveniftherewas,assaultwasdisproportionatetojustifySD
PROVOCATION
• Anattempttoaccommodatehumannature:Lawrecognizesthatunderseverestressapersonmaybehaveinamannerthatwouldbeinexcusableinanyothercontext(Verigin)
KILLING
• Permissiblewherenecessarytopreserveone’slifeoravoidseriousinjury• Iftheassailedcandefendthemselvesthrough‘peacefulbutdistastefulmethodsofwithdrawingto
safety,’killinginSDisnotnecessary• Exception:indefenceofone’sownhouse,oneneednotretreatbeforethethreatofgrievousbodily
harm,thoughproportionalitystillexists
DEFENCEOF3RDPERSONS• Ifonedefendsanotherinthereasonablebeliefthatthepersonneedshelp,onemaybeexcusedfrom
tortliabilityeveniftheyareactingunderamistakenimpression• SDprinciplesapply
DEFENCEOFPROPERTY
• Trespassercannotbeforciblyrepelledorejecteduntilhehasbeenrequestedtoleavethepremisesandareasonableopportunityofdoingsopeacefullyhasbeenaffordedtohim(MacdonaldvHees)
BIRDVHOLBROOK <proportionality,notice>
Facts:• Dhasgardenw/rareflowersthatsomeoneisstealing;placesspringgunw/onoticetocatchthief;P’s
henescapesintoD’sgarden,goesintogetit,seriouslywoundedbygun
47
Issue:• Canapersonprotecttheirpropertywithviolentforcewithoutprovidingnotice?
Rule:• Useofforce,withoutwarningorthreatofforce,isnotjustifiedtopreventtrespass• Toraisedefencetoproperty,theactiontakenmustbeproportionatetothethreat
HARRISVWONG(SASK) <proportionality>
Facts:• 3youngmengotogetgasat5am,gasstationhas‘open’signoutfront,gasstationdoorhas‘closed’;
Papproachesdooraskingforgas,Drefuses;Pknocksagain,Dsticksrifleoutdoor;Prunsbacktocar• P2knocksondoor,knockingsignover;DhearssoundandshootsatP2’sfeet• Bulletricochets,shatterscarwindow;DthinksPsareB&Eing,shootsaain,hittingP• Totaketheshots,DopenedthedoorseparatinghimfromthePs
Rule:• Lawgivestherighttodefendoneselfagainsteitherathreatenedoranactualattackfromanother• RightofSDproceedsfromandislimitedbythenecessitytowardoffthedangerofsuchanattack• CommenceswhenthenecessityforsuchdefencebeginsandendswhenthenecessityforSDends• SD=defenceNOTcounter-attack;mustbereasonablyproportionatetothreat
NB:P’sNegligenceArgument
1. Dshotahigh-poweredriflebulletinanareainwhichheknewpeoplewerelocated2. DfailedtotakereasonablestepstoascertainwherePwaslocatedbeforeheshotthebullet;
alternatively,ifhedidknowthelocationofPbeforefiring,hefiredwithrecklessdisregardoftheP’slocation
3. Dfiredtheaforesaidshotinadirectioninwhichitwasnotsafetodoso4. Dusedagunwhichhewasincompetenttohandle5. Dfiredtheaforesaidshotontoasurfacefromwhichheknew,orshouldhaveknown,wouldcausethe
projectilefiredtoricochetinunknowndirections6. Dfiredtheriflew/recklessdisregardoftheconsequences,inallthecircumstancesobtaining
Holding:dutyyouowetoatrespasserisgroundedinthenotionthatyoucannotshowabsolutedisregardforlifeindefendingyourproperty
• Ownerofapropertyisunderadutynottoinjurethetrespasserwillfully
LEGALAUTHORITY
• Legislativeauthorityprovidesbasisforbehaviourthatwouldotherwisebetortious(ex.policeofficers)
Eachstatutorydefencemustbeanalysedinparticularcontextoflegislation,applyingprinciplesofstatutoryconstructionandtheCharter
48
NECESSITY
• Wheresuccessful,necessityisacompletedefencetowhatwouldotherwisebetrespassesorintentionaltorts
• Interferencew/privatepropertymaybejustifiedbynecessity• Elements:immediateurgencyoftheoccasion+dueregardtopublicsafety&convenience(Dwyer)• CentralQ:Underthecircumstances,isitjustifiedforonepartytoinvadetheprivatepropertyrightsof
another?
DWYERVSTAUNTON <trespasstoland>
Facts:• D’sbulldozerswentthroughP’spropertydespiteP’sprotest;Dclaimednecessity–hwywasblocked&
couldnotgetthroughanyotherway;Psuesfortrespass,claimingdamagestocrop,gates&injunctionRule:
• Travellerwhoislawfullyusingapublicroadhastherighttogouponprivatelandatplaceswherepublicwayisimpassible
• P’spropertyrightsshouldberespectedbutthereare“higher”rights–rightsofthepublico Though,rightsofthepublicmustbeexercisedinawaythatminimizesinfringement/extentof
damagetoprivatepropertyrights
VINCENTVLAKEERIETRANSPORTATIONCO <property>
Facts:• PsuingdamagecausedbyD’sshiptiedtoP’swharf;Darguingnecessity–violentstormmadethem
unabletomovevessel,requiredthemtotieittowharfRule:
• Ifactsofnecessitycausedamagetoanother’sproperty,eveniftheyactedasaprudentperson,theywillbeliable
• Necessityisstrictlyapplied:theremustbeimminentthreat&noreasonablealternatives
STRICTLIABILITY
Responsibilityw/ofault–ineachtort,lookforelementsthatreplacefault&justifytortliability
VICARIOUSLIABILITY
• Holdsonepersonresponsibleforthemisconductofanotherbecauseoftherelationshipbetweenthem(Sagaz)–employmentrelationshipmostcommon
ELEMENTS
1. Tortcommitted2. Tortfeasor&Dareinanemployer-likerelationship–lookforfactorsofcontrol3. Committedinthe‘courseandscopeofemployment’–Salmondtest
a. employeeactsauthorizedbytheemployerOR;
49
b. *unauthorizedactssoconnectedwithauthorizedactsthattheymayberegardedasmodesofanauthorizedact(althoughimproper)
*forintentionaltorts,applyBazleyvCurrytestPOLICYJUSTIFICATIONSFORVL
• Compensation–ifsomeonehastobealoser,itshouldbethepersonwhoemploys,putstrustinthedeceiver(HernvNichols)
• EnterpriseCausation–thepersonwhocreatesariskshouldbearthelosswhentheriskripensintoharm(BazleyvCurry)
• Deterrence–employersareinpositionstoreducenegligenceandintentionalwrongsbyefficientorganization&supervision
ONTARIOLTDVSAGAZINDUSTRIES <consultant>
Facts:• Sagazhiresconsultant,whobribesCdnTiretohireSasareplacementforPlaintiff;Psuingforlosses
Issue:• IsDvicariouslyliableforthebriberyschemeperpetratedbytheconsultant?
Rule:• Ifemployerhasmorecontrol,VLapplies;applyfunctionaltestforcontrol:(non-exhaustive)
o Provisionoftheirownequipment/workerso Degreeofresponsibilityformanagement&investmento Degreeofpersonalfinancialrisko Worker’sopportunityforprofit
Analysis/Holding• Consultantnotanemployee,butanindependentcontractor:
o Sdirectedprices/terms/conditionsbutAIMwasultimatelyincontrolofprovidingassistanceo Degreeoffinancialriskoropportunity,hiringitsownhelpersallshowthatAIMwasan
independentcontractorinbusinessonitsownaccounto Policyconsiderations:
§ VLprovidesajust&practicalremedytopeoplewhosufferharmasaconsequenceofwrongsperpetratedbyanemployee;faircompensation
§ Deterrenceoffutureharmasemployersareofteninpositiontoreduceaccidents&intentionalwrongsbyefficientorganization+supervision.
BAZLEYVCURRY <employee>
Facts:• Curry,apedophile,employedatChildren’sFdn,whoarecluelesstoC’spedostatus;Cconvictedof
sexuallyabusingB;Cdies;BsuesFdnforcompIssue:
• CanemployersbeVLfortheiremployees’sexualassaultsonclients/personswithintheircare?
50
Rule:• ChangesSalmond3bwhenatortisintentional–lookforwhetherthereis(1)asufficientconnection
betweenthecreationorenhancementofriskbythemodesofemploymentand(2)thewrongthatflowsfromthat
o Relevantfactorsmayinclude:§ Opportunitytheenterpriseaffordedemployeetoabusetheirpower;§ Extenttowhichthewrongfulactmayhavefurtheredtheemployer’saims(&hencebe
morelikelytohavebeencommittedbytheemployee);§ Extenttowhichthewrongfulactwasrelatedtofriction,confrontationorintimacy
inherentintheemployer’senterprise;(ex.bouncercreatesfrictionsometimes)§ Extentofpowerconferredontheemployeeinrelationtothevictim;§ Vulnerabilityofpotentialvictimstowrongfulexerciseoftheemployee’spower
Analysis:• Thefactthatthewrongoccurredduringworkinghours,oratjobsitedonotalonecreateVL• Employmentcreatedopportunityforintimateprivatecontrol,parentalrelationship&power–created
specialrelationshipthatcreatedtherisk(ofsexualassault),whichmaterialized• Abusewasinaresidentialcarehomewherethechildlives
JACOBIVGRIFFITHS <course&scope>
Facts:• D,PDofaboys/girlsclub,sexuallyassaultedP&otherchildren
Analysis:• Mereopportunityisnotenoughtomaterializetherisk• UnlikeBazley,enterprisewasondevelopingrelationships(horizontal,equal)amongmembers,not
relationshipstopersonsinauthority(vertical)• Clubwasofferingrecreationalactivitiesforchildrentobeenjoyedingroupsw/volunteers&members• AffordedDforslimopportunitiesforriskcreation–sexualabusewasfrom‘chainw/multiplelinks’
(ex.invitedchildrentohishome;authorized‘touching’ofchildwastobeonlyw/ireasonsofhisjob;nothingtodow/parenting,nurturingbeyondthatofanormaladult)
Holding:• Employerdidwhatareasonableemployeroughttohavedone;employeenotactinginC&Sofemp.
EBVORDEROFTHEOBLATESOFBC <course&scope>
Facts:• Schoolonveryisolatedislandw/hierarchalpower(knowntoconferrisksinabuseofpowerleadingto
VL);Dwasabakerinformallyworkingw/schoolRule:
• Toimposevicarious(asopposedtodirect)liabilityonanemployer,thelawrequiresastrongconnectionbetweenwhattheemployerwasaskingtheemployeetodoandthewrongfulconduct
51
Analysis/Holding:• Roleswerenotclear-cut;nostrongconnectionbetweenwhatschoolhadaskedbakertodo&the
wrongfulconduct• Mustdemonstratethattheschool-createdemploymentfeaturesoftheemploymentrelationshipof
theTFcontributedtotheabilityoftheTFtodowhathedid• NoVL
FOOTNOTECASES:
• KLBvBC:cantheministrybeVLWRTfosterparents?No,notanemp-likerelationship,nocontrol• EDGvHammer:younggirlabusedbyjanitor;noconnectionbetweenTOEandwhatheactuallydid
–employmentprovidedhimw/opportunitytodothisbutnoconnectionbetweentheriskthatwascreated&realized
• BlackwatervPint:wheremorethanoneemployerexercisessufficientcontrol,maybeheldjointlyVL
RYLANDSVFLETCHERRULE
Facts:• Dbuiltreservoirontheirlandcontaininghugeamountsofwater;throughnonegligence,water
overflows&floodsP’smineshaftsonadjoininglandRule:2approaches
1. (LordBlackburn)2requirementsa) Dbringsontohisland,collects&keepsthereanythinglikelytodomischiefifitescapesb) Itescapes
2. (LordCairns)2requirements:a) “Non-natural”useofland–hereitwasnon-natural–largequantityisnotnaturaluse
§ NNUiscontextspecific;dependsonordinaryusesofsocietyovertime§ Mustbesomespecialusebringingw/itincreaseddangertoothers,andmustnot
merelybetheordinaryuseofthelandorsuchuseasisproperforthegeneralbenefitofthecommunity
b) Escape–tosomeotherlandwheretherewasdamage§ Escapeisdifferentthancause;itistheliteralescapeontotheland
DEFENCES
1. ConsentofthePlaintiffo Appliessamewayitdoestootherintentionaltortsandnegligence
2. DefaultofthePlaintiffo Itissimilartocontributorynegligenceo SomethingthatthePdidthatcontributedtotheescape
3. ActofGodo Rarelyusedbutgooddefencetoescape;extraordinaryphenomenaofnaturewhichcannotbe
foreseen:“nohumanforesightcanprovideagainstandofwhichhumanprudenceisnotboundtorecognizethispossibility”
52
o NicholsvMarsland-floodingwasnotreasonablyanticipatedthatbrokeD’sdamtofloodP’sproperty
4. DeliberateActof3rdPersono IfaDcanprovethattheescapeinquestionwascausedbya3rdperson’sconsciousactof
volition(will),theDwillbeexemptedfromstrictliabilityo It’snotenoughthata3rdpersonunleashtheforcethatcausethedamage,itmustbe
donesodeliberately5. LegislativeAuthority
o Noliabilityincommonlawwheretheactisauthorizedbylegislatureo Theprincipleisthatiflegislatureswishtoimmunizecertainactivitiesforthepublicgood,they
shoulddosoexpresslyandprovideforalternativecompensationtothevictimsofthisexerciseofpublicpowers.
FIRES
OrdinaryusesoffirearenotsubjecttoRylands.Theyarestrictliabilitytortsbutarecontrolledbynegligence.Ifanon-ordinaryuseoffirecauseddamage,strictliabilityapplies.
ANIMALS
2groupsofdangerousanimals:
(1) Dangerousasagroup(feraenaturae)–ex:lions,zebras,etc.(2) Notdangerousasagroup(mansuetenaturae)–ex:dogs,cats
o ButIhaveknowledge(scienter)thatthisparticularmemberofthegroupisdangerouso Youmayhavescienterevenwhereadoghasnotbittensomeoneinthepast,ifhisbehavior
indicatesthatheisanaggressivedogcapableofdoingso(viciousormischevioustraits)o *here,evenwhereSLfails,youcanraiseclaiminnegligence
NUISANCE
Nuisanceexistswhenoneperson’suseoftheirpropertycausesanunreasonableinterferencewithsomeoneelse’suseandenjoymentoftheirownproperty.Actualdamagedoesnotneedtobeproved.WhatisreasonableisbasedonwhetheritwouldbetoleratedbytheordinaryuserintheP’sposition.
Theindividualclaimingnuisancemusthavepropertyinteresttobringtheclaim.(SutherlandvCanada)
PRIVATENUISANCE
• Whereexcessiveuseofpropertycausesinconveniencebeyondwhichoccupiersinthevicinitycouldreasonablybeexpectedtobear;havingregardfor:
o Severityoftheharmo Characteroftheneighbourhoodo Utilityoftheconductinquestiono WhetherPdisplayedabnormalsensitivityo Onlyaninterferenceneedstobeproved;noactualdamage
• Onlyinterferencesneedstobedemonstrated,notphysicalharm/damage
53
PUGLIESEETALVNATIONALCAPITAL <stormwater>
Facts:• GroundwatertablewassubstantiallyloweredbyD’sconstruction
Issue:• Diddrainingwatercauseunreasonableinterferencew/P’suse&enjoymentoftheland?
Rule/Analysis:• Yes,nuisance&negligencebothavailable• Nuisancedoesnotrequireafindingofnegligence(thatlandsusedwithoutreasonablecare);rather,
thattheinterferencewithR’srighttouseandenjoypropertywasunreasonable• Ifanoperationcannotbytheexerciseofreasonablecareandskillbepreventedfromcausinga
nuisance,thenitcannotlawfullybeundertakenunlessthereiseitherastatutoryauthorizationortheconsentofthoseinjured.
TOCKVSTJOHN’SMETROPOLITANBOARD <statauthoritydefence>
Facts:• Stormsewersfloodland,Tsaiditwasunnaturalcause
Rule:• Materialdamageisnotnecessarybutmakesitmorelikelythatcourtswillconcludetherehasbeenan
unreasonableinterferencewithuseandenjoymentofproperty• Interferencew/sensesmustnotbetheresultofabnormalsensitivityonthepartofP(standardsof
ordinarycomfortheldbythoseofplainandsobertastes)Analysis:
• Floodingwouldbeactionablenuisanceifthepartieshadbeentwoprivateindividuals• DifferentconsiderationsappliedbecauseDisamunicipality,abletorelyonthedefenceofstatutory
authorityo TheMunicipalitiesAct:authorizesDtoconstruct,operateandmaintainthesewagesystem,
confersapowerbutdoesnotimposeaduty;distinctionisrelevanttothequestionofrespondent'sliabilityinnuisance
DEFENCEOFSTATUTORYAUTHORITY:• Iflegislationconfersauthorityonapublicbody&givesitadiscretiononwhethertodoanauthorized
thing,howtodoit,andinwhatlocation,ifthePBdecidestodoit,itmustdoitinawaythatdoesnotcreateanuisance
o Ifitdoesgiverisetoanuisance,itwillbeliabletherefor,whetherthereisnegligenceornot
HEYESVVANCOUVER[2011] <statauthoritydefence>
Facts:• LossofbusinesswhilebuildingCanadalineonCambieSt.Bizownersacknowledgeditwasforthe
greatergoodofcitizens,butfelttheyshouldbecompensatedforlossofbusinessRule:
• Publicgoodvprivateindividuals
54
• WherethereisonlyonepracticallyfeasiblemethodofdoingsomethingwhichaDhasstatutoryauthoritytodo,thereisnoliabilityifitwaspracticallyimpossiblenottocauseanuisanceusingthatmethod
• Nuisancewasinevitableduringtheconstruction;citychosearatherdisruptivewaytobuild,&whiletherewerelessdisruptiveways,theyweremoreexpensive¬practical
• Defenceapplies
ANTRIMTRUCKCENTREVONTARIO(TRANSPORTATION)[2013]SCC <unreasonableinterference>
Facts:• Pownedtruckstop;governmentbuiltnewsectionofhighwaywhicheffectivelyimpededaccessto
truckstop;PallegesnuisanceRule:
• Whenassessingreasonableness,focusisonthereasonableness(ornot)oftheinterferencesufferedbyP,notthereasonablenessofD’sconduct
o UtilityofD’sconductwillbeafactorindeterminingthereasonablenessofP’sinterference(“inallthecircumstances)”
• Qiswhetherthedamageflowingfromtheinterferenceshouldbeproperlyviewedasacostofrunningthesystem,thusbornebythepublicgenerally,oraninterferencethatshouldproperlybeacceptedbyanindividualaspartofthecostoflivinginorganisedsociety
FOOTNOTECASES:
• Nor-VideovOntarioHydro:PcablecosuingDreerectionofelectricaltransmissionslinescausinginterferencewithP’stransmission&signaltocustomers;
o Holding:Causeofinterferencesignificant;TVisanimportantincidentinmodernlife• HuntervCanaryWharf:buildingbuiltadjacenttobuildingPresidesininterferesw/hisTVreception
o Holding:merepresenceofabuildingw/osomethingmoredoesnotcompromiseanuisance;man’srighttobuildshouldnotberestrictedbyhisneighbour,butratherzoninglaws
• ApplebyvErieTobacco:odorscomingfromD’sfactoryinterferingw/P’senjoymentofpremises;o Holding:standardofcomfortforsensesisaquestionofdegree;here,D’sfactoryisanuisance
–odorscausematerialdiscomfort&annoyance,renderP’spremiseslessfitforordinarypurposesoflife
NB:Whenlookingatreasonablenessoftheinterference,considermotivevmalice(HollywoodSilverFoxFarm)
Related Documents
