1

TORTS2020

Table of Contents

GENERAL DUTY OF CARE .......................................................................... 3 Elements of Negligence ..................................................................................................................... 3

Winterbottom v Wright (1842) ......................................................................................................... 3 Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) ........................................................................................................ 4 Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co (1928) ....................................................................................... 4

Anns Test: Two-Step Test for Duty of Care ........................................................................................ 5 Dobson v Dobson (1999) ................................................................................................................. 5 Cooper v Hobart (2001) .................................................................................................................. 5

NOVEL DUTY OF CARE ..................................................................................................................... 6 Hill v Hamilton – Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007) ................................................ 6

DUTY TO RESCUE ............................................................................................................................. 6 Haynes v Harwood (1935) ............................................................................................................... 6 Horsley v MacLaren ........................................................................................................................ 7 Urbanski v Patel ............................................................................................................................. 7

NONFEASANCE ........................................................................................ 7 Stovin v Wise (1996) ....................................................................................................................... 7 UnionPacificvCappier(1903) ................................................................................................................ 7 Oke v Weide Transport ................................................................................................................... 7 Childs v Desmoreaux ...................................................................................................................... 8 Rankin v JJ (2018) .......................................................................................................................... 8

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES .......................................................................... 8 Just v British Columbia (1989) ........................................................................................................ 8 Roncarelli v Duplessis .................................................................................................................... 9 Kamloops v Nielsen ........................................................................................................................ 9 R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd (2011) ........................................................................................ 9

STANDARD OF CARE ............................................................................... 10 OBJECTIVE STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 10

Vaughn v Manlove (1837) ............................................................................................................... 10 McHale v Watson (1966) ................................................................................................................ 10 McErlean v Sorel ........................................................................................................................... 10

REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE .......................................................... 11 United States v Carroll Towing Co ................................................................................................. 11 Bolton v Stone ............................................................................................................................... 12 Overseas Tankship v The Miller Steamship .................................................................................... 12 Latimer v AEC (1953) ..................................................................................................................... 12 Tomlinson v Congleton City Council (2004) .................................................................................... 12 WattvHerfordshireCountyCouncil(1954) .............................................................................................. 12

ROLE OF CUSTOM AND USAGE ....................................................................................................... 13 Trimarco v Klein (1982) ................................................................................................................. 13 The TJ Hooper (1935) .................................................................................................................... 13 Ter Neuzan v Korn (1995) .............................................................................................................. 13 Hill v Hamilton (2007) ..................................................................................................................... 14

ROLE OF STATUTES ........................................................................................................................ 14 Littley v Brooks (1940) ................................................................................................................... 14 The Queen in the Right of Canada v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool ..................................................... 14

2

CAUSATION ........................................................................................... 15 MULTIPLE ACTUAL CAUSES ............................................................................................................ 15

Athey v Leonati .............................................................................................................................. 15 LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY ................................................................................................................. 16

Cook v Lewis (1951) ...................................................................................................................... 16 Sindell v Abbott Labs (1980) .......................................................................................................... 16 Snell v Farrell ................................................................................................................................ 17 Walker Estate v York Finch General Hospital (2001) ...................................................................... 17 Resurfice v Hanke (2007) .............................................................................................................. 18 Clements v Clements ..................................................................................................................... 18

Remoteness ........................................................................................... 18 Wagon Mound No 2 ........................................................................................................................ 19

THIN SKULL RULE ........................................................................................................................... 19 Smith v Leech Brain & Co .............................................................................................................. 19 Stephenson v Waite Tileman Limited ............................................................................................. 19 Cotic v Grey .................................................................................................................................. 20

HOW THE PLAINTIFF INCURRED THE HARM .................................................................................... 20 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) ..................................................................................................... 20 Doughtey v Turner Manufacturing Ltd ........................................................................................... 20 Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council ........................................................................................ 21

INTERVENING ACT .......................................................................................................................... 21 Bradford v Kanellos (1974) ............................................................................................................ 21 Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970) ........................................................................................... 22 Lamb v London Borough of Camden (1981) ................................................................................... 22

PSYCHIATRIC HARM ........................................................................................................................ 22 Mustapha v Culligan of Canada (2008) ........................................................................................... 22 Saadati v Moorhead ....................................................................................................................... 23

DEFENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 23 DAMAGES ........................................................................................................................................ 24

Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd ............................................................................................... 24

3

TORTS CAN (2019-2020)

GENERAL DUTY OF CARE

Elements of Negligence 1. Dutyofcare:dutytoactreasonablytowardspeoplefallingwithinariskcreatedbythedefendant'sconduct

a. Istheplaintiffsuchaperson?IfYES,thendutyofcareb. Conceptofdutyisaboutwhoistheplaintiffandwhatistherelationshipbetweenplaintiffanddefendant-defendant

doesn'toweadutyofcaretoeveryoneintheworld,needstobesomeproximaterelationshipc. Question:Istheplaintiffareasonablyforeseeableplaintiff?Shouldtheyhavekepttheplaintiffintheirmindwhen

doing(ornotdoing)whattheywere?d. DonoghuevStevenson

2. Breachofstandardofcare:conductthatfallsbelowacertainstandard(areasonablepersonofordinaryprudence)a. Question:Didthedefendantfailtomeetthestandardofthereasonableperson?b. Reasonablepersonstandardused-howwouldareasonablepersonact?(notentirelyobjectiveorsubjective)

3. Causationinfact:thecausewithoutwhichtheeventcouldnothaveoccurred.a. Question:'Butfor'thedefendant'sconductwouldtheplaintiffsuffertheinjury?b. Causationoffact-factual,evidentiaryquestion-didtheyactuallycausetheharm?Usethe'butfor'testc. Iftheplaintiffwouldhavesufferedtheharmanyways,nocausation

4. Remoteness(causationinlaw='proximatecause'):didthebreachofdutyresultintheharmsothatliabilitycanbeimposedonthedefendant.a. Question:Doestheplaintiff'sinjuryreasonablyfallwithintheriskcreatedbythedefendant'sconduct?b. IfYES(damagenottooremote)-thenthedefendantcanbesaidtohavecauseditinlaw

IfYES,thenliabilityforNEGLIGENCE-thenproceedtodefences/damages

1. Defences:contributorynegligence,voluntaryassumptionofrisk,illegalitya. Defencesaredifferentinscopeb. Contributorynegligence(incompletedefence):thedefendantcontributedinsomewaytotheirownharm(nota

completedefenceforthedefendant,damagesusuallyreduced)c. Othertwoarecompletedefences,veryhardtoprove

i. Voluntaryassumptionofriskii. Illegality

2. Damages:plaintiffmustshowactualharm(physical/mentalinjury)a. Canprovenegligenceiftheharmisonlypsychological,butmustshowevidence(differentevidencerequiredfor

physicalversuspsychologicalharm)

Winterbottom v Wright (1842) Facts:Winterbottomwasacoachmanwhodroveahorse-pulledmailcoach.HisemployersenteredintoacontractwithWrighttomaintainthecoachandkeepitingoodworkingorder.Wrightfailedtodothis,andWinterbottomfelloffthecoachandinjuredhimself.HesuedWrightclaimingthatadutyaroseoutoftherelatingcontracts,althoughtheyhadnocontractualrelationshiptooneanotherIssue:Doesadutyofcareextendbeyondcontractingparties?Reasons:Thejudgesfindthatithasalwaysbeenheldthatdutydoesnotextendbeyondcontractingparties.Theyareunwillingtochangethisstandardbecauseofthepotentiallyunreasonableextensionofliabilitythatitcouldcreate.Theyrecognizethatthisisahardcase,becauseWinterbottomhasobviouslybeenwronged,howevertheyfindthatWrighthadnodirectdutytotheplaintiffastheywerenotbothpartiestothecontractHolding:ForthedefendantRatio:Aplaintiffcannotbringtortclaimsagainstadefendantfornonfeasancethatresultedfromacontractwhichplaintiffwasnotprivyto(thiscaseisnolongergoodlaw,butshowselementsofdutyofcare)

4

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Facts:Donoghuedranksomeofthecontentsofagingerbeerfromacafé.Theremainsofasnailinastateofdecompositionwerefoundinthebottle.Donoghuewasnotabletoclaimthroughbreachofwarrantyofacontract:shewasnotpartytoanycontract.SheissuedproceedingsagainstStevenson,themanufactureIssue:DidthemanufactureroweDonoghueastandardofcare?Reasons:

• Priortothis,amanufacturerowednodutyofcaretoaconsumerwhenputtingaproductonthemarketexcept:o Ifthemanufacturerwasawarethattheproductwasdangerousbecauseofadefectanditwasconcealedfromthe

consumer(fraud),oro Theproductwasdangerousperseandfailedtowarntheconsumerofthis

• DevelopmentoftheneighborrulebyLordAtkin• Musttakereasonablecaretoavoidactsoromissionswhichyoucanreasonablyforeseewouldbelikelytoinjureyour

neighboro Personmustbereasonablyforeseeabletobeinjuredo Injurythatresultedmust’vebeenreasonablyforeseeable.

• “Neighbor”=“personswhoaresocloselyanddirectlyaffectedbymyactthatIoughtreasonablytohavethemincontemplationasbeingsoaffectedwhenI’mdirectingmymindtotheactsoromissionwhicharecalledinquestion.”

• Holding:ForthedefendantRatios:

• Negligenceisdistinctandseparateintort• Theredoesnotneedtobeacontractualrelationshipforadutytobeestablished• Manufacturersoweadutytotheconsumerswhotheyintendtousetheirproduct• Therequirementsare:foreseeability,proximity,andfairness(policyconsiderations)

Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co (1928) Facts:ThePlaintiffwasstandingonarailroadplatformpurchasingaticket,whenatrainstoppedandtwomenranforwardtocatchit.Oneofthemennearlyfell,andtworailroademployeesattemptedtohelphim.Intheprocess,apackagecontainingfireworksfellandthecontentsexploded.AsaresultoftheexplosionsomescalesattheotherendoftheplatformfellandstruckthePlaintiff.Plaintiffsuedandajuryfoundinherfavor.TheAppellateDivisionaffirmedthisdecision,buttheCourtofAppealsofNewYorkreversedIssue:Whatconstitutesnegligence?Reasons:Plaintiffmustshowthatsomewrongwasdonetoherself,i.e.,thattherewasaviolationofherownrights,notmerelyawrongdonetosomeoneelse

• Inthiscase,therewasnothingtoindicatethatthepackagecontainedfireworks,andifdropped,wouldcauseanexplosion.Theguards,whowereassistingthepassengeronthetrain,werenegligentindoingso,andcausedthepackagetobedislodged,whichfellcausinganexplosion

• Theexplosioncausedsomescalesattheotherendoftheplatformtofall,strikingPlaintiff.TheguardswerenotnegligentinrelationtothePlaintiff,whowasstandingfarawaywhenthepackagewasdropped

• IfthecourthaddecidedthatDefendantwasnegligentinrespecttothePlaintiff,thenthemajorityconcludesthatadefendantwouldbeliableforanyandallconsequencesofitsnegligence,“howevernovelorextraordinary.”

Holding:Reversedappellatejudgment.ComplaintdismissedRatio:Torecoverfornegligence,theplaintiffmustestablisheachofthefollowingelements:duty,standardofcare,breachofduty,cause-in-fact,proximatecause(scopeofliability)anddamagesRules:

• Negligenceisn’tactionableunlessitinvolvestheviolationofalegallyprotectedinterest,theviolationofaright• Plaintiffmustshowaviolationoftheirownright,andnotmerelyawrongdonetosomeoneelseorconductthat’swrongful

becauseunsocial• Thereasonablyperceivedriskdefinestheduty–itisrisktootherswithinthe‘rangeofapprehension’(outoftherangeof

apprehension)• Unintentionalwrongisdefinedintermsofthe“naturalandprobable”

5

• Eveniftheguywiththepackagegotharmedandhewassuingtheguard,theladycan’tsuetheguardonthatbasis,shewouldneedtoshowherownharmasaresult.

Anns Test: Two-Step Test for Duty of Care AdoptedbySCCinKamloops(andlaterrevisedbyCooper),fordeterminingdutyofcare

• Onexamdon’tputoriginalAnnsteston,becauseitwasrevisedbycooper,sousethatone.

1) Isthereasufficientlycloserelationshipbetweenthepartiessothat,inthereasonablecontemplationoftheD,carelessnessonitspartmightcausedamagetotheP?ifso:

a. ReasonableforeseeabilityandproximityiswhattheSccimplementedintothisstepincooperandsetoutwhatthisquestionreallymeans.Ifanswertothisisyes,youhaveaprimafaciedutyofcare.Canberebuttedbypolicyconsiderationsinthesecondstep.

b. Onlydothisstepifnootherrelationshiphasyetbeenestablished2) Arethereanyconsiderationswhichoughttonegativeorlimitthescopeoftheduty,theclassofpersonstowhomitis

owed,orthedamagestowhichabreachofitmaygiverise?

Dobson v Dobson (1999) Facts:Theappellantwaspregnant,andlostcontrolofhervehiclewhiledriving(allegedlybyhernegligentdriving).Theinfantrespondentwasallegedlyinjuredinuteroandwasdeliveredprematurely.Hesuffersfrompermanentmentalandphysicalimpairment.Theinfant,throughhislitigationguardian,launchedatortclaimagainsttheappellantforthedamagessustainedIssue:Shouldamotherbeheldliableintortfordamagestoherchildarisingfromaprenatalnegligentactwhichallegedlyinjuredthefetusinherwomb?Reasons:

• KamloopsvNielsenrecognizedthatevenwhereadutyofcareexists,itmaynotbeimposedforreasonsofpublicpolicyo Heldthatbeforeimposingadutyofcare,thecourtmustbesatisfiedthat1)thereisasufficientlycloserelationship

betweenthepartiestogiverisetoadutyofcare,2)thattherearenopublicpolicyconsiderationswhichoughttonegativeorlimitthescopeofduty,theclassofpersonstowhomitisowed,orthedamagestowhichabreachofitmaygiverise

o Here,significantpolicyconcernsmilitateagainsttheimpositionofmaternaltortliabilityforprenatalnegligence(privacyandautonomyrightsforwomenandthedifficultiesinherentinarticulatingajudicialstandardofconductforpregnantwomen)

o Alsoapotentialgender-basedtortincontraventionofs.15oftheCharter• Policyconcernsincludeprivacyandautonomyrightsofwomen,andthedifficultiesofarticulatingajudicialstandardof

conductforpregnantwomenHolding:AppealallowedRatio:Pregnantwomendonotoweadutyofcaretothefetusintheirwomb

• Thetesttodetermineifadutyofcareisowedhastwoparts:1)istherelationshipcloseenoughtocreateareasonableduty?2)aretherepublicpolicygroundstonegateorlimitthescopeoftheduty?

Note:Alberta Maternal Tort Liability Act

• CircumventstheDobsondecisionwhileplacingclearlimitsonwhenitwillbeallowed• Onlyappliestomotorvehicles,doesnotgiveadutyofcareforanyotherpotentialnegligentactofapregnantwoman• Establishesalimitedexceptiontotheimmunity-amothermaybeliabletoherchildforinjuriessufferedbyherchildduring

herpregnancyinanautomobileIFthemotherisinsured• Liabilityislimitedtotheamountthatthemotherwasinsuredfor• Potentiallygivesrisetoadutyofcare,butstillneedtoprovethattherewasactualnegligence-thisActcircumventsDobson

intermsofdutyofcare,inthisverynarrowcircumstance

Cooper v Hobart (2001) Facts:AppellantisaninvestorwhoallegesthatastatutoryregulatorisliableinnegligenceforfailingtooverseetheconductofaninvestmentcompanywhichtheRegistrarlicensedIssue:DoestheRegistraroweaprivatedutyofcaretomembersoftheinvestingpublicgivingrisetoliabilityinnegligenceforeconomiclossesthattheinvestorssustained?(notyetrecognized)Reasons:

6

• ReaffirmsAnns,heldthattheAnnstwo-stagetestdoesnotinvolveduplicationbecausedifferenttypesofpolicyconsiderationsareinvolvedatthetwostages

• Firstbranchofthetest:reasonableforeseeabilityoftheharmmustbesupplementedbyproximityo Proximity:categoriesmaybeusedtodeterminewhenadutyofcareisowed,butthefactorsthatsatisfythisare

diverseanddependonthefactsofthecase.o "Circumstancesoftherelationshipthatareofsuchanaturethatthedefendantmaybesaidtobeunderan

obligationtobemindfuloftheplaintiff'slegitimateinterestsinconductinghisorheraffairs"-canlookatexpectations,representations,reliance,propertyorotherinterests

o Wherehasproximitybeenrecognized:wherethedefendant'sactforeseeablycausesphysicalharmtotheplaintiffortheplaintiff'sproperty,dutytowarnoftheriskofdanger,relationaleconomiclosssometimes

• Secondbranch:Distinctionbetweengovernmentpolicyandexecutionofpolicyisconsideredo Gov'tactorsnotliablefornegligenceinpolicydecisions,butoperationaldecisions.Agov'tactormaybeliablein

negligenceforthemannerinwhichitexecutesorcarriesoutpolicyo Thissecondsteponlyariseswherethedutyofcaredoesn'tfallintoapreviouslyrecognizedcategory.Itseldom

arises,butwherenovelclaimsareallegedthenitwillHolding:Appealdismissed.Thestatutedoesnotimposeadutyofcaretotheinvestors,buttothepublicasawhole.InsufficientproximityforaprimafaciedutyofcareRatio:RevisedAnnstest

NOVEL DUTY OF CARE

Hill v Hamilton – Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007) ApplicationofrevisedAnns-CoopertestFacts:Innocentpersoninvestigated,tried,wrongfullyconvicted,spentmorethan20monthsinjailIssue:Canthepolicebeheldliableiftheirconductduringaninvestigationfallsbelowanacceptablestandardandharmtoasuspectresults?Reasons:

• Didtheactionsoftheallegedwrongdoerhaveacloseordirecteffectonthevictim,sothatthewrongdoeroughttohavehadthevictiminmindasapersonpotentiallyharmed?(Plaintiffhastheformalonusofestablishingdutyofcare)YES

o Heretherewasapersonalrelationship,Hillhadbeensingledoutasasuspecto DutyofcareinlinewithChartervalueso Justnessofthejusticesystem-virtuallynootherrecourse

• Broaderpolicyreasonsfordecliningtorecognizeadutyofcare?o Nocompellingreasongiven

Holding:Infavouroftheplaintiff.PolicecanbeheldliableiftheirconductfallsbelowanacceptablestandardRatio:Resultedinthetortofnegligentinvestigation–policeoweadutyofcaretosuspectsbeinginvestigated

• Policyconsiderationsatthesecondstagemustbemorethanspeculative–arealpotentialfornegativeconsequencesmustbeapparent

DUTY TO RESCUE

Haynes v Harwood (1935) UsesoldCooperanalysis–herethefocusisondutytorescueFacts:Harwood'sservantbroughtatwo-horsecarriageintoaresidentialneighborhoodandparkeditacrossthestreetfromapolicestationwhilehewasoffdoingwork.Whiletheservantwasaway,childrenupsetthehorsesandtheybrokefreeandwereonapathtoinjurepeople.Haynes,apoliceoffice,ranoutandstoppedthehorsesbutwasinjuredintheprocessIssue:Whensomeoneknowinglyputshimselforherselfindangertoprotectothers,isthenegligentpartyliablefordamagessufferedintheprotectioneffort?Reasons:

• Thecourtholdsthatincasessuchasthese,thevolentinonfitinjuriamaximdoesnotapply.Ifsomeoneactstohelpthoseindangerasaresultofaperson'snegligentactions,thatpersonisliablefordamagesresultingfromtheiractionsaslongastheyarereasonableinthecircumstances.Takingriskuponyourselfisnotapplicableinrescuecommitment

Holding:InfavouroftheplaintiffRatio:Thedoctrineoftheassumptionofriskdoesnotapplywheretheplaintiffhas,underexigencycausedbythedefendant’swrongfulmisconduct,consciouslyanddeliberatelyfacedarisktorescueanotherfromimminentdangerofpersonalinjuryordeath,whetherthepersonendangeredisowedadutyofcarebytheplaintiffornot

7

Note:Itisimmaterialthattheimperiledpersondoesn’tsufferaninjury

Horsley v MacLaren Facts:Personfelloffboat,anotherjumpedintorescuethem-summaryoftheprinciplesofadutytorescuersinCanadaReasons:

• Legalprotectionisaffordedtoonewhorisksinjurytohimselfingoingtotherescueofanotherwhohasbeenforeseeablyexposedtodangerbytheunreasonableconductofathirdperson(recognizedcategory)

• Interventionoftherescuermustnotbe'soutterlyfoolhardyastobeoutsideofanyaccountablerisk'• Thisisanindependentdutyofthenegligentperson-notthatthedutyoftherescuerissomekindofderivativeduty-thisis

aseparate,independentdutyofcaretotherescuero Doesn'tmatterifthefirstpersondoesn'tsufferanyinjuries-iftherescuerwasinjuredadutyofcareisstillowed

• Ifyouarethetortfeasorandyouareyourownvictim(imperilyourself),youstillowethemadutyofcareeventhoughyouweren'tnegligenttoanyoriginalvictim

o 'Apersonwhoimperilshimselfbyhiscarelessnessmaybeasfullyliabletoarescuerasathirdpersonwouldbewhoimperilsanother'

Ratio:SummaryofprinciplesofadutytorescuersinCanada

Urbanski v Patel • Defendantwasasurgeon;accidentlyremovedthepatient’sonlykidney.Herfathervolunteeredoneofhiskidneystobe

transplantedbutitwasunsuccessful.Thefatherthensuedthedoctorforhislossofhiskidney-courtfoundthistobearescuersituation,fathersefforttohelpthedaughterwasaconsequenceofthedoctor'snegligencetowardsthedaughter

• Wasentirelyforeseeablethatamemberofthefamilywoulddonateakidney

NONFEASANCE Generalprinciples:tortlawdistinguishedbetweenfailingtopreventharm(nonfeasance)andtakingaction(misfeasance)

Stovin v Wise (1996) • Omissionsrequiredifferenttreatmentfrompositiveconduct-lessofaninvasiononindividualfreedom• Adutytopreventharmtoothersorgiveassistancemayapplytoalargeandindeterminateclassofpeoplewhohappento

beabletodosomething-efficientallocationofresourcesgenerallyrequiresthatanactivityshouldbearitsowncosts

UnionPacificvCappier(1903)Facts:Actionbroughtbyamothertorecoverdamagesonbehalfofherson,whowasrunoverbythetrainoftheplaintiffbyaccidentanddied.Sheallegedthathersonhaddiedfrominjuriesthattheworkersonthetrainhadfailedtotreat,andthusactednegligentlyIssue:DidUnionPacificoweadutyofcaretothedeceased?Reasons:

• Whentheinjuriesresultfromone'sownnegligence,asinthiscase,athirdpartyowesnodutytoprotectoraidthenegligentindividual.Althoughtheseactsmightberequiredbymorality,theyarenotrecognizedaslegalduties

• TheagentsofUnionPacificplayednoroleincausingtheinjuriesofCappier'sson.Theremustbeadutyowedinorderfornegligence;therewasnodutyowedinthiscase,andthereforetherecanbenofindingofnegligence

Holding:InfavourofthedefendantRatio:Thereisnodutytoacttohelporaidanindividualwhohasbeeninjuredsolelybyhisorherownactions;apartycannotbefoundnegligentforfailingtopreventharmiftheyhavenotcontributedtotheriskofharm

Oke v Weide Transport • Droveintoapostonthehighway,clearedawaythedebrisbuttherewasapolestickingoutoftheground,whichheleft.He

didn'treporttheaccident.Lateramanwasdriving,hitthepoleanddied• Majority-eveniftheDwasunderalegalobligationtoreportthedamagetothesign(wasn'tdecided),theaccidentthat

occurredwasunenforceable

8

• Dissent-defendantcan'tbecomparedtootherpassingdriverswhohadnodutyo Whilethedefendantwasn'tnegligentincreasingtherisk,hewasnegligentifoncetheriskwascreated,hedidn't

actappropriatelytoeliminateit

Childs v Desmoreaux Ifnonfeasance,mustapplythiscase!Facts:TheplaintiffwasstruckandinjuredbythedefendantwhowasdrivingdrunkonhiswayhomefromapartyhostedbyZimmerman.TheplaintiffsoughtdamagesfromthedefendantandZimmermanIssue:Isthehostofthepartyliableifinebriatedguestsdriveandinjuresomeone?Principles:

• Privatehostsdonotoweadutyofcaretothoseinjuredbyharmcausedbyaninebriatedguest• Incasesofnonfeasance,foreseeabilityalonedoesnotmakeadutyofcare–foreseeabilitymayestablishadutyofcare,

generallywhereanovertactofthedefendanthasdirectlycausedforeseeableharmtotheplaintiff• Generally,thefactthatsomeoneisindangerorposesadangertoothersdoesnotimposeadutytoact• Adutytoactisonlyimposedwhere:

1) Adefendantintentionallyinvitesathirdpartytoaninherentandobviousriskwhichhecreatedorcontrols2) Apaternalisticrelationshipexists

a. E.g.Parent–Child,Teacher–Studentb. Onepartyisinapositionofreducedautonomywhichinvitescontrol

3) Thedefendantbyhispositionorcommercialenterprisetakesonresponsibilitiestothepublicatlarge

Rankin v JJ (2018) Facts:JandCwerecarhoppingafterdrinkingatC’smother’shouse.Cstoleacar,whichRhadleftunlockedwiththekeysinside.CcrashedthecarwithJinside,causingseriousinjurytoJIssue:Doesonewhostoresvehiclesoweadutyofcaretominorswhomightstealthem?Holding:Rcouldnothavereasonablyforeseentheinjuryasheoughttohavebeenawareonlyoftherightoftheft,nottheriskofthetheftbyminorswhodroverecklesslyandweretherebyinjuredDissent:Wheretheplaintiffhasalreadysustainedaninjury,itisrareforacourttofindthatadutyofcareisnotestablishedforalackofreasonablyforeseeableharmRatio:

• Illegalconductbytheplaintiffdoesnotprecludetheexistenceofadutyofcare• Illegalityisonlyadefencewhereitisnecessarytopreservetheintegrityofthelegalsystem• Illegalitydoesnotseverproximity• Abusinesswillonlyoweadutyofcaretosomeonewhoisinjuredfollowingthetheftofavehiclewhen,inadditiontotheft,

thephysicalinjurytotheplaintiffwasreasonablyforeseeable• Carsarenotinherentlydangeroussuchthattheyarerequiredtobestoredcarefullytoprotectthepublic

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Just v British Columbia (1989) *Notthelatestonnegligence,ImperialTobaccoisFacts:Theplaintiff’sdaughterwaskilledwhenaboulderdislodgedfromahillontothehighway.TheplaintiffclaimsBCwasnegligentinmaintainingthehighwayIssue:Whencanagovernmentagencybeheldliableinnegligence?Reasons:

• Govt’scannotbeheldliableforpolicydecisions,butalsodon’thavecompleteimmunity• Mustestablishbetweenpolicydecisions(exemptfromliability)andtheiroperationalimplementation(subjecttoliability)• Policydecisionsarethosedictatedbyeconomic,financial,socialorpoliticalfactorsorconstraints.Anoperationaldecisionis

anactionorinactionthatismerelytheproductofanadministrativedirection,expertorprofessionalopinion,technicalstandardorgeneralstandardsofreasonableness

• Toconstituteapolicydecision,thegovernmentmustgenerallyactinareasonablemannerwhichconstitutebonafide(goodfaith)exerciseofdiscretion

Holding:Theconductwasheldtobeoperationalinnature,sosubjecttoreview

9

Ratio:Inthecaseofpublicauthoritiesitisnecessaryto:

(1)Reviewtheapplicablelegislationtoseeifitimposesanyobligationorprovidesanexemptionfromliabilityforfailure;(2)Determinewhetherthepublicauthorityisexemptedfromliabilitysinceitsconductconstitutesa'policy'decision(ifpolicydecision,itisnotreviewablebythecourtsandcan'tbethefoundationforanaction.Ifanoperationdecision,canbethebasisforanegligenceaction)

Roncarelli v Duplessis • Thiscaseisaboutthemeaningofa‘bonafide’exerciseofdiscretion• Cannothaveabsolutediscretion• Fraudofcorruptionalwaysshownobonafideexerciseofdiscretion• Mustbeexercisedingoodfaith• Cleardeparturefromstatutemaybeobjectionable

Kamloops v Nielsen • Exampleofwhentherewillnotbeabonafideexerciseofdiscretion• MunicipalcouncilofKamloopsknewaboutfaultyfoundationofahouse,housecollapsed,weresuedfornegligence• Itwasn'tthattheyconsideredthesituationanddecidedonpolicygroundstogoaheadwiththeconstruction,itwasnever

consideredinthefirstplace• Inactionfornoreasonorinactionforanimproperreasoncan'tbeapolicydecisiontakeninthebonafideexerciseof

discretion• Plaintiffhastobelongtothelimitedclassofpeoplethestatutecreatesaprivatelawdutyto

R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd (2011) Facts:InresponsetotheSCCholdingthatBC'sTobaccoDamagesandHealthCareCostsRecoveryActwasintravires,thetobaccoindustryattemptedtorecoupdamagesfromthefedgovernmentbyallegingthatthegov'tshouldalsoberesponsibleforanydamagesthatmightbefoundagainstthetobaccocompaniesbecauseCanadahasactivelyparticipatedintheCanadiantobaccoindustryonanoperationallevelIssue:Doesthegov’toweadutyofcaretothetobaccocompany,ortotheconsumers?Reasons:Holding:CourtheldinfavouroftheCanadiangov’t.Claimstonegligentmisrepresentation,failuretowarnandnegligentdesignwerestruckoutb/crelatedtopolicydecisionsRatio:

• Governmentactorshavenodutiesinnegligencewithrespecttopolicydecisions,yettheymayattracttortliabilitywhentheyarenegligentincarryingoutprescribedduties

• Corepolicydecisionshouldnotbedefinedasa“non-operational”decisionbutshouldbedefinedpositivelyasadecisionthatisgroundedinsocial,economicandpoliticalconsiderations

• “Core”policygovernmentaldecisionsprotectedfromjudicialrevieware“decisionsastoacourseorprincipleofactionthatarebasedonpublicpolicyconsideration,suchaseconomic,socialandpoliticalfactors,providedtheyareneitherirrationalnortakeninbadfaith.”

• 3situationsmaygiverisetoaproximityrelationshipestablishingadutyofcareforgovernmentagency:1)Primafaciedutiesofcarecanatisefromstatute(thisisrare)2)AdutyofcaremayarisefromspecificinteractionsbetweenPandthegovernmentagency3)Both

• Policydecisionsare:“discretionarylegislativeoradministrativedecisionsandconductthataregroundedinsocial,economic,andpoliticalconsiderations”

10

STANDARD OF CARE Generallyanobjectivestandard-whatwouldareasonablepersoninthesituationdo?Onceadutyofcareisestablished,thestandardofcaremustbedetermined

OBJECTIVE STANDARD Thereasonablepersonofordinaryprudence(Vaughan)Exceptions:

1) Insanity/Illness:Iftheinsane/illDwasunabletounderstandthedutythatrestedonhimandunabletodischargethatduty–theapplicablestandardofcareisthatofareasonablycompetentpersonunawarethatheisormaybesufferingfromaconditionthatimpairshisability(Buckley;Mansfield)

2) Children(McHale;McErlean)-Babiesandveryyoungchildrenareincapableofnegligence-Childrenwhohavenotyetattainedmajoritybutarecapableofforeseeingtheprobableconsequencesoftheiractions–samestandardasadults-Childrenwhoareinbetween–thestandardofcareisthatwhichisreasonabletoexpectofchildrenoflikeage,intelligence,andexperience,unlesschildengagesin‘adultactivity’

Vaughn v Manlove (1837) Facts:Thedefendantmadeahaystackaroundhispremisesthat,thoughhewaswarneditmaybeafirehazard,chosetokeepup.Itcaughtfireandthefirespreadtotheplaintiff’scottageIssue:Shouldthestandardofcarebesubjectiveorobjective?Ratio:Thestandardofcareisbasedonordinaryprudenceexpectedofaperson.Thestandardofcaredoesnotregardthespecificintelligenceofthedefendant

McHale v Watson (1966) *SlightlymodifiedtestforchildrenFacts:Ayoungboythrewanobjectthatseriouslydamagestheeyeofayounggirl.HedidnotintendfortheobjecttohitherIssue:Whatisthereasonablestandardofcareapplicabletochildren?Reasons:Americanprecedentdividesstandardofcareintothreeclassesasrelatestochildren:

1) Childrentooyoungtoperceiveriskatalla. Thisgroupisimmunefromliabilityinnegligence

2) Childrenfullycapableofforeseeingtheconsequencesoftheiractionsa. Tothemthestandardofreasonablepersonisappliedasiftoanadult

3) Childrenwhoarestilldevelopingtheabilitytoperceiverisksandconsequencesoftheiractionsa. Tothemisappliedthestandardofareasonablechildoflikeage,intellectandexperience

• Foresight:Thementalabilitytoforeseearisk• Prudence:Thementalabilitytopreventarisk

Ratio:slightlymodifiedtestforchildren.Needtolookatsimilarchildren(reasonablechildofsimilarcircumstances)

McErlean v Sorel • Thegeneralruleisthatchildrenareheldtoastandardofcareexpectedofchildrenoflikeage,intelligenceand

experience• Exception-whereachildengagedin'adultactivities'-e.g.driving,snowmobiling

o Operationofanymotorizedvehicle,whethertherearestatutoryrestrictionsregardingageornotNote:

• Defendantwithsubstandardorexperience-notanexcuse(otherthanmaybeforchildren)• Ifthedefendanthasmoreextensiveknowledge:

o Physician-averagestandardoftheclassofpractitionersthattheyfallwithino Specialistsareheldtothestandardofotherspecialists

• Ifyou'relessexperienced-e.g.ifyou'reanassociate,you'reheldtothestandardofthereasonablyprudentlawyer

11

The“ReasonableManofOrdinaryPrudence”• Theembodimentofallthequalitiesofthegoodcitizen• Anobjectivetest,butwithsubjectiveelements• Thereasonablemanis‘presumedtobefreefromoverapprehensionandfromoverconfidence’• Substandardexperienceorknowledgeisn'tanexcuse(otherthanforchildren),butifDhasmoreextensiveknowledgethe

standardisamanwithsuchknowledge• Physiciansàthestandardoftheaveragepractitioneroftheclasstowhichshebelongsorholdsherselftobelong• Beginnersàthestandardofthosewhoarereasonablyskilledandproficientintheparticularprofessionoractivity• Tasksdemandingexpertskills->evenlaymanwillbejudgedbythestandardoftheexpert

Solongasitsnotachild/insaneperson/usuallythey'llbefoundtohavefailedthestandardofcareThenextquestioniswhatistheactualreasonablecarethatisdesired

REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE Whatisthereasonablestandardtowhichweareheldliablebeforeweareheldliableforbreach?TheLearnedHandFormula:Liabilitydependsonwhetherthecostofavoidingtheaccidentislessthantheprobabilityoftheaccidentmultipliedbythecostoftheaccident.Applieddifferentlyovertime(CarrolTowing)

Bolton:Consideredlikelihood/degreeofriskandhowseriousconsequencesarelikelytobe,butnotdifficultyofremedialmeasures

OverseesTankshipandTomlinson:Consideredlikelihoodandseriousnessoftheinjury,aswellas,socialvalueoftheactivityandthecostofpreventativemeasures

RoleofCustomandUsageTrimarco:Needtolookatwhatiscustomaryintheapplicableindustryinthecontextofwherethedefendantisoperating.Customarypracticeandusagedon’thavetobeuniversal,only“fairlywelldefinedandinthesamecallingorbusiness”

• Evenwhencustomarypracticeexists,thisisnotnecessarilyaconclusivetestofnegligence–itmustbereasonableinitself• “Whatisusuallydoneisevidenceofwhatoughttobedone,butwhatoughttobedoneisfixedbyareasonableprudence,

whetheritusuallyiscompliedwithornot”TJHooper:“thereareprecautionssoimperativethateventheiruniversaldisregardwillnotexcusetheiromission”TerNeuzen:Specialistsareheldtoahigherstandard;mustbeassessedwithoutthebenefitofhindsight;conformitywithpracticewillgenerallyexoneratephysiciansofnegligence,howeverevenacommonpracticemayitselfbenegligentif‘fraughtwithobviousrisks’suchthatanyoneiscapableoffindingitnegligentwithoutneedinganyexpertise.Hill:Consideredlikelihoodofknown/foreseeableharm,gravityofharm,costtopreventtheinjury,externalindicatorsofreasonableconduct,statutorystandards

• Policediscretionmustbereasonablebutnotperfect• Distinctionbetween‘unreasonablemistakes’breachingthestandardofcareanderrorsinjudgment

United States v Carroll Towing Co Facts:Thedefendantleftashipunattachedinabusyharbor.ItbrokeawayfromitsmooringandcollidedwithanothershipIssue:HowtodeterminetheapplicablestandardofcarePrinciples:

• Setoutthelearnedhandformula:3variablesincludeo Theprobabilityoftheaccidento Thegravityoftheresultinginjuryo Theburdenofadequateprecautions

• Purelyeconomiccostbenefitanalysis• Thereasonablepersonwouldnotavoidanaccidentifitdoesnotmakeeconomicsensetodoso

12

• CriticismfromMcCartyvPheasantRun:theformulahasgreateranalyticalthanoperationalsignificance

Bolton v Stone Facts:TheplaintiffwasstruckbyacricketballhitbythedefendantwhileonanearbypublicroadIssue:Whatisthenatureandextentofthedutyimposedononewhopromotesonhislandoperationswhichmaycausedamagetopersonsonadjoiningpublicland?Principles:

• Likelihoodofdamagemaybeconsideredinadditiontoforeseeability• Reasonablepeopledoconsiderthedegreeofriskandnotitsmerepossibility• Peoplemustguardagainstreasonablepossibilities,buttheyarenotcompelledtoguardagainstfantasticalones• Peoplemustnotcreateariskwhichissubstantial• Doesnotconsiderthecostofprevention

Overseas Tankship v The Miller Steamship Facts:Ashipleakedoilontotheharborwhilesomelaborerswereworkingonaship.Sparkscausedtheoiltoigniteandtheshipsweredestroyed.MillersuedseekingdamagesIssue:Shouldthedefendantbeliablefordamagesthatwerenotforeseeable?Principles:

• Addstheelementofsocialutility• Holdsthattheremustbeareasonfordisregardingevenanimprobablerisk

o Suchasahighcostofriskprevention• Apersonisnegligentifheorshedoesnottakestepstoeliminateariskwhichtheyknowisreal

Latimer v AEC (1953) Facts:Afloodrenderedthefloorofafactoryslippery.Anemployerspreadasmuchsawdustasavailabletoremedythis,butwasunabletofixthehazard.AnotheremployeewashurtandsuedIssue:Wasitreasonablefortheemployertotakeonlythestepsthathedid?Principles:

• Giventhehighcostofshuttingdownthewholefactorytoavoidallrisk,itwasreasonablefortheemployertotakeonlythestepsthathedidtoreducethehazard

• Thedegreeofriskmatchedthestepstakentomitigateit• Areasonablycarefulemployerwouldnothaveshutdownthefactory• *Reaffirmstheelementofsocialutility

Tomlinson v Congleton City Council (2004) Facts:Theplaintiffdoveheadfirstintoaman-madelakemaintainedbythedefendantandbrokehisneckIssue:Didthepremisescreateariskthattheclaimantshouldhavebeenabletoexpectprotectionfrom?Holding:Thecouncilhadnoliabilitytotheclaimantbecausethedangerofriskwassoobviousandarosefromtheclaimant’sownactionsPrinciples:

• Itmaybejustifiablenottoavoidaforeseeableriskiftheriskisunlikelytobareoutandthecosttoremedyitishigh• Costmaybeeconomic,butalsocomeintheformofprohibitingsociallyvaluableactivity,orintheformofundulylimiting

choiceinwhetherornottoengageinriskyactivity• Justbecauseariskcanhaveseriousconsequencesdoesn’tmeanitisaseriousriskifitisunlikelytooccur• Seriousnessofoutcomeisnotthesameasdegreeofrisk

WattvHerfordshireCountyCouncil(1954)Facts:TheplaintiffwasafirefighterwhowasinjuredwhenequipmenthewashaulinginslippedandinjuredhimIssue:Istheonlythingthatriskneedstobebalancedagainsttrulytheburdenoftakingthemeasuresnecessarytoeliminatetherisk?Principles:

• Theriskthattheequipmentmightslipwasworththeriskastoavoidthiswouldriskmoreseriousharmtothevictimoftheaccidentwhichwasbeingrespondedto

13

• Thesavingoflifeandlimbjustifiestakingconsiderablerisks• Thereismoretothecostofpreventionthanthemonetarycost-mustbalanceriskagainstbothsocialutilityandthecostof

prevention• Endtobeachievedmustbetakenintoaccount

ROLE OF CUSTOM AND USAGE

Trimarco v Klein (1982) Facts:Theplaintiffwasinjuredwhentheglassshowerdoorinhisapartment(ownedbythedefendant)unexpectedlyshattered.GenerallyacceptedpracticewastoreplacetraditionalglassshowerdoorswithsaferplasticorsafeglassonesIssue:Didthedefendanthaveadutytocomplywiththegenerallyadoptedsafetyprecaution?Canthecourtrelyoncustomandusageintheindustrytoestablishastandardofcare?Reasons:Customarypracticeandusagedoesn’thavetobeuniversal,only“fairlywelldefinedandinthesamecallingorbusiness”Holding:TheevidencesupportedtheconclusionthattherewasageneralcustomandthattheshoweddoorhadbecomeunsafeatthetimeoftheaccidentPrinciples:

• Wherethereisagenerallyrecognizedwayofdoingthingssafety,anyonewhofailstoactinthiswayfallsbelowthestandardofcare

• Whenproofofanacceptedpracticeisaccompaniedbyevidencethatthedefendantconformedtoit,thismayestablishduecare

• Whenproofofcustomarypracticeiscoupledwithashowingthatitwasignoredandthatthiswastheproximatecauseoftheaccident,itmayservetoestablishliability

• Whatisusuallydonemayevidencewhatoughttobedone,butwhatoughttobedoneisfixedbythestandardofreasonableprudence,whetheritusuallyiscompliedwithornot

The TJ Hooper (1935) Facts:Abargepulledbytwotugssankinastorm.TheywerenotequippedwithstandardradioreceiverswhichcouldhavereceivedwarningabouttheoncomingstormHoling:Theownerofthetugwasfoundliable,astheradioreceivercouldbecheaplyboughtandgreatlyreducedtherisk(despitethefactthatequippingradioreceiverswasnotyetawidelyacceptedpractice)Principles:

• Commonprudenceusuallysatisfiesreasonableprudence,butnotalways• Thereareprecautionssoimperativethateventheiruniversaldisregardwillnotexcusetheiromission

Ter Neuzan v Korn (1995) Facts:Doctorperformedartificialinseminationonapatientusingcustomarypracticeintheindustry.ThepatientcontractedAIDS.TheriskofcontractingAIDSviaAIwasnotknownbroadlytothemedicalcommunity.NotestwasavailableforHIVinsemen.DoctorimmediatelydiscontinuedAIprogramoncehelearnedoftherisk(aftershewasinfected)Issue:Cantherebeliabilityfornegligencenotwithstandingthatmedicalpracticewasconformedto?Reasons:

• Physicianshaveadutytoconducttheirpracticeinaccordancewiththeconductofaprudentanddiligentdoctorinthesamecircumstances

• Aspecialistphysicianisassessedinlightoftheconductofotherordinaryspecialists,whopossessareasonablelevelofknowledge,competenceandskillexpectedofprofessionalsinCanada,inthatfield

• Theconductofphysiciansmustbejudgedinlightoftheknowledgethatoughttohavebeenreasonablypossessedatthetimeoftheallegedactofnegligence

• Conformitywithpracticewillgenerallyexoneratephysiciansofnegligence,howeverevenacommonpracticemayitselfbenegligentifitisfraughtwithobviousrisks,suchthatanyoneiscapableoffindingitnegligentwithoutneedinganyexpertise

Holding:inthiscase,itwasimpossibleforthejurytofindthat,giventhestateofknowledge,thereasonablepractitioneroughttohavediscontinuedAIorwarnedtheplaintiffoftherisk;thiswasn'tthekindofcasewhereajudgecouldproperlyinstructthejurythatitcoulddecidethegeneralpracticewasnegligentPrinciples:

• Asageneralrule,whereaprocedureinvolvesdifficultoruncertainquestionsofmedicaltreatmentorcomplex,scientificorhighlytechnicalmattersthatarebeyondtheordinaryexperienceandunderstandingofajudgeorjury,itwillnotbeopentofindastandardmedicalpracticenegligent

14

• Asanexceptiontothegeneralrule,ifastandardpracticefailstoadoptobviousandreasonableprecautionswhicharereadilyapparenttotheordinaryfinderoffact,thenitisnoexcuseforapractitionertoclaimthatheorshewasmerelyconformingtosuchanegligentcommonpractice

Hill v Hamilton (2007) Facts:Plaintiffwaswrongfullyconvictedandspentmorethan20monthsinprisonIssue:Whatistheappropriatestandardofcare?Holding:

• Thestandardofcareisthatofareasonablepoliceofficerinallthecircumstances• Whennewinformationemergesthatcouldberelevanttothesuspect’sinnocence,reasonablepoliceconductmayrequire

thefiletobereopenedandthematterreinvestigatedPrinciples:

• Wherethedefendanthasspecialskillsandexperience,thedefendantmust"liveuptothestandardspossessedbypersonsofreasonableskillandexperienceinthatcalling

• Anumberofchoicesmaybeopentoapoliceofficerinvestigatingacrime,allofwhichmayfallwithintherangeofreasonableness.Solongasdiscretionisexercisedwithinthisrange,thestandardofcareisnotbreached

• Factorsfordeterminingthestandardofcare:likelihoodofknownorforeseeableharm,gravityharm,burdenorcosttopreventinjury,externalindicatorsofreasonableconduct,statutorystandards

• Onlydecisionsoutsideofreasonablediscretionareliablefornegligence• Basedoncircumstanceswhichexistedatthetime• Onlyunreasonablemistakesandnoterrorsofjudgmentwhichproduceliability

ROLE OF STATUTES

Littley v Brooks (1940) Facts:Theplaintiffisthewidowofamanstruckandkilledbythedefendant’strain.Therewasanon-bindingprovincialregulationlimitingthespeedofthetrainbelowwhatitwasgoingatthetimeofthecollisionIssue:Cananinapplicableregulationevidenceastandardofcare?Holding:Althoughnotbindingonthedefendant,theregulationwasadmittedasevidenceofastandardofcareReasons:

• Whiletheorderwasnotbindingonthedefendant,itconstitutedevidencethatthecrossingwasdangerousandthatprecautionswererequired.Itwasadmissibleassuchsinceitcontainedtheresultsofinquiriesmadebyapublicauthorityonamatterofpublicconcern

• Suchevidencecouldalsoberejectedifit’ssupersededorsetasidebyasubsequentinjurymadebythesameorsimilarpublicauthority

• ContrastwithChipchase-exactoppositeoutcomefromLittley-plaintiffwasapainter,providedtwoladdersandaplankwithwhichtopaintbyhisemployer.Felloffandsueddefendant,claimedtheplankwastoonarrow.Accordingtothelegislation,iftheplaintiffhadbeenworkingatacertainheighttherewasarequirementforthewidthoftheplank.Itdidn'tdirectlyapplytothisscenario.Plaintiffclaimedthatsincehealmostfellwithintheregulationssothecourtshouldtakeitintoaccountasevidence.

o Courtrejectedthis,saidithastobeconsideredindependentlyoftheregulations,shouldn'tconsiderallthestatutesthatalmostapplybutdon'texactly(indeterminate)

o Notamatterofcommonsensethattheplankshouldhavebeenwider,theplaintiffhimselfselectedtheplanPrinciples:

• Regulationsabouthowanactistobesafelyperformedmayevidenceastandardofcareevenifnotdirectlybindingontheentityinquestion

The Queen in the Right of Canada v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Facts:Pooloperatedagrainelevatorandshippedgraintoeasternprovinces.TheCommissionerdetectedrustbeetlelarvaeonthewheatandhadtopaytofumigatethewheat.TheCommissionisseekingcompensationforthecostofthefumigation,notclaiminganynegligence,onlyabreachofthepool’sstatutorydutytoprovideuninfectedgrainIssue:WhereAhasbreachedastatutorydutycausinginjurytoB,doesBhaveacivilcauseofactionagainstA?Ifso,isthisliabilitydependentonA’sleveloffault?

15

Holding:Breachofstatuteisnotatort,therewasnonegligencethereforethereisnocaseherePrinciples:

• Thisistheauthorityontheroleofstatutes• Proofofstatutorybreachcausingdamagesmaybeevidenceofnegligence(continuetoapplythefullnegligenceanalysis

andstandardofcareanalysis,takingintoaccountthatthestatutewasbreached)• Wherethereisnonegligence,breachoflegislationshouldn'taffectcivilliabilityunlessthestatutesoprovides• Astatutecanprovideaspecificstandardanditsbreachmayprovideevidenceofnegligence,butthequestionremains

whetherthedefendantfailedtoactwithreasonablecare

CAUSATION

• Herewearedealingwithcausationinfact-differentfromcausationinlaw(remoteness,askswhatisthetypeofinjurytheplaintiffsuffered,andifitwastooremote)

• Questionforcausationinfact:Didthedefendantactually,infact,causetheplaintiff'sinjuryonabalanceofprobability?Test:"butfor"test-wouldtheinjurytotheplaintiffhaveoccurred'butfor'thedefendant'sact?(BarnettvChelsea)-onlyusedwithonedefendant/cause

Ifyes-nocausationIfno–causation

Twodifficultieswiththe'butfor'test:1) Multipleactualcauses(twodefendants/twosimultaneousnegligentacts)-usethe'materialcontributiontotheinjury'test

a. Needtoask:Waseachcausesufficientinitself?Ifeachcausewassufficientinitselftocausetheplaintiff'sinjury,the'butfor'testfailsbecauseitwouldtechnicallyletallthedefendantsoffthehook

b. Formultiple,sufficientcauses-cannotusethe'butfor'testc. Materialcontributiontotheinjurytest:Didthedefendants,eachofwhosenegligencewassufficientinitselfin

termsoftheevidence,contributetotheplaintiff'sinjury?Allareheldliablebecausetheyallcontributedmateriallytotheplaintiff'sinjury

2) Logicalimpossibility(inabilitytodeterminewhichoftwoormoredefendantsthatdidsomethingpotentiallynegligentactuallycausedtheinjury)-usethe'materialcontributiontotherisk'test

a. Materialcontributiontotherisktest:lowerthreshold-dideachdefendantmateriallycontributetotheriskofinjury?

MULTIPLE ACTUAL CAUSES

Athey v Leonati MaincaseonmultipleactualcausesFacts:Plaintiffhadapre-existingmedicalcondition.Accident#1happened-defendant#1'sfault.Accident#2happened-defendant#2'sfault.Plaintifflaterdidsomestretchingandhadaherniateddisk.Heclaimstheinjurywasbothdefendant'sfaultGeneralprinciples:

• Thegeneraltestforcausationis'butfor'• Thedefendant'snegligencedoesn'tneedtobethesolecauseoftheinjury-couldhavepotentialcausesandmultiple

liability• Thequestioniswhetherthedefendant'snegligencemateriallycontributedtotheinjury(testfromhere)• Defendantisliableforanyinjurycausedorcontributedtobyhisnegligence,regardlessofthepresenceofother

contributingcauses(dideachdefendantmateriallycontribute,orcausetheinjury?)• Plaintiffistobeplacedinthesamepositionheorshewouldhavebeeninabsentthedefendant'snegligence,butnotina

betterposition(nottryingtogettheplaintifftoaplacepastthepre-existingcondition)Multipletortiouscauses:whentherearetwotortiouscauseseachdefendantisfullyliablefortheplaintiff'sinjury;therecanbenoapportionmentwhenthereisatortiousandnon-tortiouscause

• Humandefendantcannotclaimthattheirliabilityshouldbelessbecausethenon-tortious(nothuman,anactofgod)causeshouldcarrysomeofthedamages

• Onlycanapportionliabilitybetweenhumandefendants,notbetweenatortiousandnon-tortiouscause

16

Divisibleinjuries:wheninjurieshavetwocausesthataredistinctanddivisible,apportionmentofdamagesispermitted• Notpossiblewhenthereisone,indivisibleinjury(e.g.generallywhenapersonisdead,orthediskherniation)

Inthiscase:• Ifthedischerniationwouldlikelyhaveoccurredatthesametimewithouttheaccidents,thennocausation('butfor')• Ifboththeaccidentsandthepre-existingconditionswerenecessaryfortheherniationthencausationisproven;evenifthe

accidentsplayedaminorrole,thedefendantswouldbefullyliable• Iftheaccidentsalonecouldhavebeenasufficientcauseoftheherniationandthepre-existingconditionalonecouldhave

beenasufficientcauseofthehernatiation,mustdetermineonabalanceofprobabilitieswhetherthedefendant'snegligence"materiallycontributed"totheinjury

Holding:Eachdefendantheldliablefor100%oftheplaintiff'sdischerniation

LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

• Heretherearemultiplepossiblecauses–iftheplaintiffcannotshowitislogicallyimpossiblewhichofthemultiplepossiblecausesactuallycausedorcontributed

Cook v Lewis (1951) Facts:CandLwerehuntingwhenCaccidentallyshotL.BothCandanotherhunterhadbothfiredshotsinL’sdirection.ItwasunclearwhoseshothitLIssue:Twonegligentdefendants,butonlyoneultimatelycausedtheinjury.JurycouldnotdeterminewhohaddoneitReasons:

• SCCsetouttheoldrulefromtheCL:whenitscertainthatoneofthetwoindividualscommittedtheoffence,butitsunclearwhichonewastheguiltyparty,thenneitherareliable(essentiallyinnocentuntilprovenguilty),unlessspecialcircumstancesarise

• Courtdepartedfromthisrule,referredtothecaseofSummersvTice:bothDscouldbefoundliableifeachbreachedadutytotheP;theburdenofproofthenshiftstotheDstoprovewhichoneofthemcausedtheinjury.Iftheycan't,thenbothareheldliable

o Hereitwasheldthatbothcontributedtotheriskofhimbeingshot,sobothareheldliable• Dissent:Becausethere'snoevidencethateitherdefendantshottheplaintiffinactuality,thereisnolegalreasontohold

themresponsibleforeachother'sactionandtheyshouldnotbeheldliablePrinciples:

• Doctrineofalternativeliability-ifitislogicallyimpossibletoshowwhichofthecausesactuallycausedorcontributedtotheact,ifbothbreachedthedutytotheplaintiff,theburdenshiftstotheplaintifftoshowwhichofthemcausedtheact.Iftheycan't,theyarebothheldliable(reversalofburdenofproof)

Sindell v Abbott Labs (1980) Doctrineofmarketshareliability-modifiedversionofmaterialcontributiontotherisktestFacts:Plaintiffwasapartofaclassaction.SufferedharmasaresultofhermothertakingthedrugDESduringpregnancy.Thedefendantsweremultipledrugmanufacturingcompanieswhofailedtowarnofpotentialharmsofthedrug.Pknewthetypeofdrug,butcouldn'tidentifytheactualmanufacturerthatsoldtheprecisedrughermotherconsumed(logicalimpossibility)Issue:Reasons:

• FactsofSummersdistinguishedhere-inSummersallthepartieswhocouldhavebeenresponsibletotheplaintiffwerejoinedasdefendants,meaningtherewasa50%chanceoneofthemwereresponsible.Here,therewereactually200drugcompaniesthatcouldhavemadethedrugatthattime(differentfromCook),sorequiringtheplaintifftoidentifythemanufacturerwhoactuallysupplieditortojoinall200manufacturerswouldessentiallymeanshecouldn'trecover

o Policyreasonsinfavouroffindingcausation:§ Difficultforconsumerstotraceharminacomplexindustrialsociety§ Defendantshouldbeartheburden-delayedeffectsformanyyears,notfairthedefendantshouldbeable

tousetheonsetoftheinjuryasadefencetocausation§ Defendantsarebetterabletobearthecostoftheinjuryresultingfrommanufacturingadefectiveproduct

withinsurance• Assessthepercentagewhichthedrugsoldbyeachdefendantbearstotheentireproductionofthedrugssoldbyall-a

'substantial'percentageisrequired-ifthisisnotfound,thedefendantisn'tliable(onlyworksforclassactions)

17

o Courtdidn'twanttomeasurethechanceofallthepotentialdefendantsbydividingitbythenumberofdefendants(e.g.200).Instead,wantstomeasurethechancethatanyofthedefendantssuppliedthedrugbythepercentagewhichthedefendant'sshareofthemarketforthatdrugwas(e.g.1/5)

o Thisjustifiessayingthatoncethedefendantshavesignificantorsubstantialcontrolofthemarket,theburdenthenshiftstothedefendantstoshowwhichoneofthemactuallymadethedrug

o Iftheycannotfindthis,thentheyareallliableo Thisalsoservesasameansforapportioningdamagesamongdefendants-payaccordingtomarketshare,butstill

jointlyandseverallyliableDissent:saythemajority'sdecisionpermitsrecoveryfromahandfullofdefendants,eachofwhomindividuallymayaccountforasmallshareofbusinessaslongastheaggregateshareofallofthemissubstantial(problemwith'whatissubstantial')Principles:

• Secondsituationwithalogicalimpossibilitysituation,somewhatmodifiedtestbecauseofthenumberofpotentialdefendants.Nota50%chancesousemarketshareliabilitytheory

Note:AdoptedinCanada,butprimarilywithinLegislatures,notverymuchbycourts

Snell v Farrell Facts:Medicalnegligencecase(usuallythescenariowhenthereisaweakevidencecase).DdoctorwasnegligentinperformingsurgeryontheP'seye.Aftersurgery,Psufferedastrokewhichledtoblindness.OntheevidenceitwasfoundthatthestrokecouldhavebeencausedbytheD'snegligenceinthesurgery,ORbytheplaintiff'spre-existingcondition(herewehavetwoactualcauses,twosufficientcauses).Issue:Reasons:

• SCCheldthatriskofmaterialcontributiontotherisktestshouldnotbeappliedherebecausethePcanprove,justhavetolowerthestandardofprooftoshow'butfor'(materialcontributiontotheinjury)

• ReversingtheburdenofproofisjustifiedintheCookscenario,whereitislogicallyimpossibletoshowwhichonecausedtheinjury-causationdoesn'thavetobedeterminedbyscientificprecision(Snellinference)-itisapracticalquestionoffactwhichcanbestbeansweredbyordinarycommonsense

o Wherethefactsliewithintheknowledgeofthedefendant,verylittlepositiveorscientificevidenceisneededfromthePforaninferenceofcausationagainsttheDifthereisnoevidencetothecontrary

o Problemisweakevidence-usuallybecauseitisinamedicalcontext,nottheplaintiff'sfaulttheycan'tshowsufficientevidence

• Thecourtshouldtakearobustandpragmaticapproachtothefacts• Theonusisonthepartywhoassertsaclaim,exceptwhereonlyonepartyhasknowledgeabouttheissue–thenitmayfall

tothemtoproveit• Inthiscase:aninferencethattheD'snegligencecausedorcontributedtotheP'sinjurycouldbemadefromtheevidence

andtherewasnoevidencetothecontraryPrinciples:

• Thiscaseshowswhenitistrulyalogicalimpossibilitysituation,whereyouappropriatelyshouldapplymaterialcontributiontotherisktest,whenitsnotandyoudon'thavealogicalimpossibilitysituation,justaweakevidencesituation

• Inthelatter,youarenotusethematerialcontributiontotherisktest(becausenotalogicalimpossibility),insteadusethe'butfor'test(nowcalledSnellinferencewherecausationcanbeshownevenwhenevidenceisweak)

• Causationneednotbedeterminedbyscientificprecision–itisapracticalquestionoffact

Walker Estate v York Finch General Hospital (2001) Facts:PlaintiffcontractedAIDSfromabloodtransfusion(defendantwasCanadianRedCross).HeldthatdefendantbreacheditsdutytotheplaintiffbynotinformingdonorsoftherisksoradequatelyscreeningdonorsIssue:Whatistheappropriatecausationtest?Thisisalogicalimpossibilitytestbecausethereisathirdpartyinthechainofcausation-impossibletoknowiftheywouldhavenotdonatedbloodiftheyhadknowntheyhadAIDSReasons:

• Inlightoftheaddedelementofdonorconductthe'butfor'testcouldoperateunfairly,thereforethetestiswhethertheD'snegligence'materiallycontributedtotheinjury'-MESHELSAYSTHISISWRONG

o Heretheyignorematerialcontributiontotherisktestandonlyapplytheinjurytest,eventhoughthisisnotasituationofmultiplesufficientactualcauses,itisalogicalimpossibilityproblem

Principles:• Thirdscenariowhereyoucanapplymaterialcontributiontotherisktest

18

• Courtshouldhaveusedmaterialcontributiontotherisknotmaterialcontributiontotheinjuryo Thisisanimpossibilityofproofscenario

• Iftheanswertothebut-fortestdependsonwhata3rdpartywouldhavedonedifferentlybutforisimpossibletoprove• Anexampleoffactualuncertainty,logicalimpossibility,andmultiplepossiblecauses

Resurfice v Hanke (2007) Facts:

• ThiscasedidtheexactoppositeofWalker-usedmaterialcontributiontotheriskandignoredmaterialcontributiontoinjury

• Basictestisalways'butfor',forcausationcases• A"materialcontribution"testcanbesubstitutedwhere:

o ItsimpossiblefortheplaintifftoprovethatD'snegligencecausedP'sinjuryusingthe'butfor'testduetofactorsoutsideofP'scontrol

o DbreachedadutyofcareowedtoP,therebyexposingPtoanunreasonableriskofinjury• Thisisbasicallythematerialcontributiontotherisktesteventhoughthattestwasalreadyestablished• InWalkertheyappliedthewrongtest,andheretheyignoretheinjurytest

Clements v Clements Facts:Facts:Dwasdrivingabike,Pwasbehindinthepassengerseat.Dwasnegligentlydriving,andatirepuncturedatthesametimethatcausedP'sinjuries(non-tortiouscause).Witnesstestifiedthattheprobablecauseoftheaccidentwasthetirepuncture,wouldhavehappenedevenifDwasdrivingslower.TJrejectedthisevidenceandfoundthatthe'butfor'testcouldnotbesatisfiedbecauseoflimitationsofscientificevidencetoshowonBofPthatthetireandnotthenegligencewasresponsibleReasons:Principles:

- Thebut-fortestistheprimarytestforcausation,anditshouldonlybesupplantedbymaterialcontributiontotheriskwhereisitimpossibletodeterminewhichofmultipleactsbymultiplenegligentactorscausedthedamage

- Materialcontributiontotheriskdoesnotprovecausation,butsubstitutesforitwheretofailtodosowouldoffendbasicnotionsoffairness

- PmaysucceedbyshowingthatD’sconductmateriallycontributedtoriskofP’sinjuryif:1) Phasestablishedthatherlosswouldnothaveoccurredbut-forthenegligenceoftwoormoretortfeasors,each

possiblyinfactresponsiblefortheloss;and2) P,throughnofaultofherown,isunabletoshowthatanyoneofthepossibletortfeasorsinfactcausedherinjury

(appliesonlyinlogicalimpossibilitysituations,doesn’tmeanweakevidence)• Thematerialcontributiontotherisktestisverylimited(Cook,Walkersituations)

o Eitheruse'butfor'foranythingotherthanlogicalimpossibilityORifyoufallwithinthisverynarrowtest,canusematerialcontributiontotherisk

o IfweakevidencesituationcanuseSnellinference

Remoteness

TestforremotenessinCanadatoday:whethertheharmisa"realrisk"thatisn't"farfetched"oramere"possibility"

• Courtsreluctanttofindliabilityfornegligencewhere:o Thelossmightbeverydifferentfromwhatonemightreasonablyexpect

§ Disproportionateorthewayithappenedwasbizarreo Lessofafactualquestionandmoreofapolicyquestion

EvolutionofRemotenessIn Re Polemis :oldphilosophyofremoteness,noconceptofaninjurybeingtooremote-notusedanymore

• Facts:Defendantscharteredaship,petrolleaked,thenasparkwasignitedandtheplaintiff'sshipwasdestroyed.Defendantsclaimtheaccidentwastooremote

• Itsimmaterialthatthewaythefirewascausedcouldn'thavebeenreasonablyanticipated• There'snodistinctionbetweentheextentandtypeofdamageresultingfromthenegligentact

19

• Courtusedtestof'directness'-iftheactcausedthedamage,nothingelsemattersandthedefendantshouldbeheldliable(thisapproachfavourstheplaintiff)

Overseas Tankship (The Wagon Mound No 1): overturnedInRePolemis

• Facts:Defendantsboatwasmooredatthesameharbouroftheplaintiff'swharf,oilspilledfromtheboatintothebay.Plaintiff'sworkmanagerbelievedthattheoilwasnotflammablesocontinuedtowork,firebrokeout,destroyedtheboat

• Heldthatthedirectnesstestisnotfairbecauseaslightactofnegligencewhichcouldresultindamagecanleadtomoregraveandunforeseeableconsequences

• Liabilityisfoundednotonthenegligentact,butonitsconsequences,thekindofwhichmustbeforeseeableo Testhereispro-defendant:thetestisforeseeability(means'probableconsequences')-highthreshold,plaintiff

neededtoshowthattheoilleakedwouldleadtotheoilandexplosion• Noliabilityherebecausedamagetothewharfwasnotforeseeable• Thetestisreasonableforeseeabilityofthekind/typeofdamage

Wagon Mound No 2 • Plaintiffin#1becomesdefendantin#2• Putforwardevidencethatthemanager'sordertokeepworkingwasnegligencebecauseitwasforeseeablethattheoil

wouldigniteandcausefire• Courtfoundnegligencehere• Testis'foreseeability'(meanspossibleconsequences)-hastoshowtheinjurywas'possible',mucheasiertofulfillthan

'probable'.Thedamagemustbea‘realrisk’

THIN SKULL RULE

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Facts:husbanddied,wifewasplaintiff.Demployersuppliedtheplaintiff'slatehusbandwithironshields,husbandsustainedaburn-butthiswasnottheinjurythehusbanddiedfrom.Theburndevelopedintocancer,whichkilledhim.TJfoundthatplaintiffwaspronetocancersothetraumafromtheburncouldhavecausedittodevelop,butitalsocouldhavedevelopedregardlessoftheburnIssue:isthereliabilityforinjurytoaparticularlysensitiveplaintiff?Policydecisionofwhoshouldbeartheburden?Reasons:Dutyandstandardfoundinthiscase,eithercausedorcontributedtothecancerandthedeathPrinciples:Atortfeasortakeshisvictimashefindshim(policydilemmaruledinfavouroftheplaintiff)

• Distinctionmaintainedbetween:(1)foreseeabilityofatypeofinjury,and(2)theextentofinjuryofaforeseeabletype(needtoestablishthatthetypeofkindofinjurywasreasonablyforeseeable,BUTEXTENToftheinjuryisnotrequiredtobeshown)

• "Crumblingskull"rulefordamages-damagescanbereducediftheplaintiffwouldhavesufferedtheharmanywaysatalaterdate

Stephenson v Waite Tileman Limited Facts:Plaintiffcuthishandfromawireropethatwasn'tsecuredproperlybyhisemployer.Hebecameseverelyillandsuedtheemployerfortheillness.Conflictinginfofromexpertdoctors-somesaidtheillnesswasnotduetopre-existingcondition,otherssaiditwasathinskullsituationIssue:Shouldonlytheinitialcutbereasonablyforeseeable,orallconsequences?Reasons:Doesn'tmatterwhichexpertevidenceweaccept,eitherwaynoremotenessissuewasfoundanddefendantisliablePrinciples:

• Therecanbeliabilityforbothconsequencesflowingfromapre-existingspecialsusceptibilityofPandfromanewriskorsusceptibilitycreatedbytheinitialforeseeableinjury

• Thequestionofforeseeabilityislimitedtotheinitialinjury

20

Cotic v Grey ThinskullruleinpsychiatricharmFacts:plaintiff'shusbandwasseriouslyinjuredinacaraccidentcausedbyD'snegligence.Beforetheaccidentthehusbandhadsufferedfromdepression.AftertheaccidenthecommittedsuicidePrinciples:

• Thinskullruleshouldbeappliedinpsychiatriccases-Dtakesthevictimashefindshim-a'psychologicallyvulnerableperson'

o Somecontroversyifsuicideshouldbeconsideredtooremoteornot-notclearhere,onthefactsofeverycaseNote:

• SmithandStephensonforphysicalinjury• WagonMoundforinjuryofproperty(andforprincipleofremoteness,thatitissomethingtheplaintiffneedstoshow)• Coticforthinskullinpsychiatricharm

HOW THE PLAINTIFF INCURRED THE HARM

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) Facts:PwasayoungboywhofellintoanunattendedmanholefollowinganexplosioncausedbyhimdroppingalampintothemanholeReasons:

• Whathappenedfellwithinthescopeoftherisk,sotheyshouldbeheldliable• Thetypeoftheplaintiff’sinjurywasforeseeable,evenifitsextentwasnot

Principles:• Disliableforforeseeablekindsdamagethoughitmaybegreaterthenwasforeseeable.Heonlyescapesliabilityifthe

injuryisofadifferentkind• Onlythekindofinjuryneedstobeforeseeable,nottheprecisecauseoftheinjury• IfP’sinjuryfallswithinthescopeoftheriskcreatedbyDthenDwillbeliable• Ifthetypeofdangerwasforeseeable,wedon’tneedtoseehowitcameabout

Note:incaseswithchildrencourtstendtofindtherisknottooremote(policyreasons-riskdefinedwidely).Ifnochildren,morelikelytouseDoughtythanHughesorJolley

Doughtey v Turner Manufacturing Ltd CourtdistinguishedthiscasefromHughes–partiallybecausenochildrenwereinvolvedFacts: P'sownedfactory,hotmetalliquidinside.Thecoveroftheliquidwasaccidentlydroppedintothecauldroncontainingtheliquid.Pstoodnexttoone,thecovercausedittoerupt,PwascoveredintheliquidReasons:

• NeitherPnorDknewthecoverwouldexplodeuponcontactwiththemoltenmetal• Althoughtherewasaforeseeableriskofburnsbysplashing,thedefendantwasnotfoundliableastheplaintiffwasnotina

positiontobeburnedbyasplash,andtheexplosionwasunforeseeable• Thedutyoftheplaintiffwasnottoavoidthecoverfalling,buttoavoiditfallinginsuchawayastosplashthosenearby,so

theinjurydidn’tresultfromtheforeseeableriskcreatedbythedefendantPrinciples:

• Riskdefinedverynarrowlyinthiscase(ascomparedtoHughes)–becausetheriskthatthedefendantcreatedwasn’twhatactuallyhappened,therewasnoliability

• Generallyifthedetailsarenotsignificant(courtdecidestouseawidescopeoftheriskcreated),whathappenedtothePwillbeheldasforeseeable.Ifthedetailsaresignificant(riskdefinedwithanarrowscope)courtsusuallyfindittobeunforeseeable

Optionsthatthecourtsmightdecideinissuesofremoteness1. E.g.droppingabrickonsomeone'shead-thiswillbefoundtobeforeseeable,noremotenessissue2. CasewheretheDdroveatruckandnegligentlyleftitonthehighwayatnight.Acarcrashesintothetruckanditcatchesfire.

ThePcomestotherescueofthecaroccupants.AfterthePgetsthemoutofthecarhereturnstohisowncarandagunwas

21

lyingonthefloorofhiscar,hepickeditupandhandedittooneofthecaroccupants,whoshottherescuerintheleg-demonstratescaseswhereitissoextremehardtoseecoming(matterofhowmuchdetailyouplaceontherisk,ifitfallswithinthescope)a. Rescuertriedtosuetheownerofthetruck

3. Everythingelsethatisn'textremelyhardtoseecoming,butalsonotclearlyforeseeablea. Howthecourtdefinesthescopeoftheriskandhowmuchemphasisthecourtputsonthedetailswilldetermineifthe

courtfindstheultimateinjuryforeseeableornot

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council Facts:Defendantsfailedtoremoveanabandonedboatthatwasrotten.Theteenageplaintiffjackeduptheboat;itfellandcausedhimseriousinjuriesReasons:

• WhatmustbeforeseenisNOTthepreciseinjurywhichoccurred,butaninjuryofagivendescription• Thedescriptionoftheinjuryisformulatedbyreferencetotheriskwhichoughttohavebeenforeseen

Principles:• Whatmustbeforeseenisnotthepreciseinjuryorwayitoccurred,butaninjuryofagiven'description';thedescriptionof

theinjuryisformulatedbyreferencetothenatureoftheriskwhichoughttohavebeenforeseen• Foreseeabilityisnotastotheparticularsoftheinjury,butthegenus• Thewiderriskwouldbeforeseeableunlessitwasdifferentinkindfromthatwhichshouldhavebeenforeseen,andeither

whollyunforeseeableorsoremotethatitcouldbebrushedasideasfar-fetched• Incasesinvolvingchildren,abroaddescriptionoftheriskisappropriate

INTERVENING ACT

• Anevent(eithersomeoneelse'stortiousbehaviour,anactofgod,etc.)thathappenedafterthedefendant'snegligentact.Ittriggers,orusuallyworsenstheplaintiff'sinjury

• Mainquestions:o Shouldtheoriginaldefendantbyliable?o Whendoesthatactaftersevertheoriginaldefendantfromthecausalchainbecausethedamageultimately

sufferedwastooremotetoholdthedefendantliable?• ModerncourtsquitereluctanttoprotectD'sfromtheconsequencesoftheirnegligencebecausesomethingelsehappened

afterwards• Test:sametestasforremotenessgenerally-reasonableforeseeability

o Wastheinterveningactreasonablyforeseeable?Arealriskfallingwithinthescopeoftheriskcreatedbythedefendant

o Ifyes-thenitwasreasonablyforeseeable

Bradford v Kanellos (1974) Facts:smallfireoccurredinthegrillinarestaurantkitchenduetothedefendant'snegligenceinnotcleaningit.Thefirewasextinguished,noonewashurt.Theextinguishermadeapoppingnoise,whichcausedsomeoneintherestauranttoyellthattherewasgoingtobeanexplosion,resultinginpanicandpeoplerunningout.Onepersonwaspushed,fellandwasinjured.TheysuedtherestaurantownerIssue:Whatistheroleofaninterveningact?Whencanitseverornegatetheliabilityofthedefendant?Reasons:

• Majority:Thehystericalconductofacustomerwhichoccurredwhenthesafetyapplianceproperlyfulfilleditsfunctionwasn'twithintheriskcreatedbythedefendant'snegligenceinfailingtoproperlycleanthegrill-notforeseeable

• Dissent(LaskinJ):aninterveningactwon'tclearadefendantifitcanfairlybeconsideredanormalincidentoftheriskcreatedbyhim-reasonablyforeseeablethatnegligentmaintenanceofthegrillwouldresultinafire,useofanextinguisher,andacustomerwouldpanic

Principles:• TestofforeseeabilityappliedtodeterminewhetherDisliableforthedamagetriggered/worsenedbytheinterveningact–

iftheinterveningactwasbroadlywithinthescopeoftheforeseeableriskcreatedbyD,heremainsliableforthedamageNote:morerecentinterpretationhasfollowedLaskin'sdissentmore-ifnaturalconsequencehappeninginthecourseofthings,lessreasontoreleasedefendantfromliability

22

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970) Facts:UnderEngland’sPrisonAct,youngoffenderscouldbebroughtinas“borstalboys”,arehabilitationprogramadministeredbytheHomeOffice(HO).Severalborstalboysescapedaworkfacilityandsnuckaboardayacht,andcrasheditintoDY’syachtIssue:Whendotheindependentactionsofanotherbreakthechainofcausationbetweenthedefendant’snegligenceandtheplaintiff’sdamage?Reasons:

• Theactionsoftheboysarefoundtobethenaturalandprobableconsequenceoftheofficer’scarelessnessandHOisthereforeheldtobevicariouslyliable

Principles:• Wherethehumanactionformsoneofthelinksbetweentheoriginalwrongdoingofthedefendantandthelosstothe

plaintiff,thatactionmustatleasthavebeensomethingverylikelytohappenifitisnottoberegardedasnovusactusinterveniens,breakingthechainofcausation

• Amereforeseeablepossibilityisn’tsufficient• Iftheactionishighlyprobableitwillnotbreakthechainofcausation,regardlessofwhetheritwasinnocent,tortious,or

criminal• Inorderforthedefendanttobeliablefortheactionsofanotherwhoisnothisservant,theother’sactmustbethenatural

andprobableconsequenceofthedefendant’swrongdoing

Lamb v London Borough of Camden (1981) Facts:Whilerepairingsewersneartheplaintiff’shome,thedefendantcausedsubsidenceandseveredamagetotheplaintiff’shome.Whilethehomewaswaitingtoberepaireditwasinvadedbysquatterswhocaused$30KinadditionaldamagesReasons:

• ItwasnotreasonablyforeseeablethatinpuncturingawaterlineitwouldleadtosquattersinvadinganearbyhomePrinciples:

• TheverylikelytooccurtestfromHomeOfficeshouldberejected• Adegreeoflikelihoodamountingtoinevitabilityisrequiredforadefendanttobeliablefortheactsofathirdparty

whichresultedfromthisownnegligence

PSYCHIATRIC HARM

Mustapha v Culligan of Canada (2008) Facts:plaintiffsuedfordepressivedisorderthathedevelopedasaresultofseeingdeadfliesinabottleofwatermanufacturedbythedefendant.Manufacturerowedadutyofcare,breachedthestandardofcareandcausedintheinjuryinfactIssue:Isthetypeofharmsufferedbytheplaintiff(psychiatric)tooremotetoholdthedefendantliable?Reasons:• Compensablepersonalinjuryintortlawincludesbothphysicalandpsychologicalinjury,butthelattermustbeserioustrauma

orillness• Thelawdoesn'trecognize'upset,disgust,anxiety,agitationorothermentalstatesthatfallshortofinjury'

o Itmustbeseriousandprolonged,andriseaboveordinaryannoyances,anxietiesandfearso Here:Courtfoundthattherewasanillnessthatrosetothatlevelandqualifiedasapersonalinjurythatcanbe

compensatedintortlaw• Thetestforremotenessis'theforesightofthereasonableman'

o Realrisk,morethanfarfetched,thatwouldoccurinapersonofordinaryfortitude(appliestobothphysicalandpsychiatric)

o Possibilityisn'tthestandardfortheapplicationofthereasonablyforeseeabletest;ratheritis"realrisk"• Thementalinjurymustbesuchthatitwouldoccurinapersonof'ordinaryfortitude'

o Unusualorextremeeventsmaybeextremebuto Don'tconfusewiththinskullrule

• Oncetheplaintiffestablishestheforeseeabilitythatamentalinjurywouldincurinapersonofordinaryfortitude,thedefendantmusttaketheplaintiffashefindshimforthepurposesofextentofdamages

Principles:• Test:

23

o Step1:needtoestablishamentalorphysicalinjurythattheplaintiffhassuffered-reasonableforeseeability• Testisarealrisk,thatisnotfar-fetched• Howtodetermine:askifapersonofordinaryfortitudewouldsuffer

o Step2:defendantmusttaketheplaintiffashefindshim• Standsforthegeneraltestofreasonableforeseeabilityandwhatitmeans• Whatkindofpsychiatricharmwouldbecompensableintortlaw,andwhatlevelofinjuryyouhavetoshow• Can'thavemeredisgustoragitation,needsaseriousillness• Whetherphysicalorpsychiatric,needtoshowthattheharmwasreasonablyforeseeable,meaningarealrisk,notfar

fetched,apersonofordinaryfortitudewouldsuffer

Saadati v Moorhead Facts:In2005theplaintiffwasinvolvedinacaraccidentcausedbyD'snegligence.Atthetimeoftheaccidenttheplaintiffappearedtobeuninjuredbutwasinanearliercaraccidenttwoyearsbefore,hesufferedfromchronicpain,thisaggravatedtheplaintiff'sclaim.Involvedintwoadditionalaccidentsin2008and2009.Laterwasdeclaredmentallyincompetent.Issue:isitnecessaryforafindingofcompensablementalinjuryforaclaimanttoshowproofofarecognizedpsychiatricillnessReasons:

• Dutyofcareexiststotakereasonablecaretoavoidcausingforeseeablementalinjury,aswellasphysicalinjury• Claimantsallegingmentalinjuryarenotrequiredtoprovideexperttestimonyofa"recognizedpsychiatricillness"

o Suchadiagnosticthresholdisunnecessaryo Expertevidencecanassistinestablishingmentalinjury,butisnotrequiredasamatteroflawo Trieroffactcanfindthattheplaintiffhasprovedamentalinjuryonthebalanceofprobabilitiesonotherevidence,

e.g.testimonyfromfriendsandfamily• Plaintiffsmustshowthatthedisturbanceis'seriousandprolonged,andarisesabovetheordinaryannoyances,anxieties

andfearsthatcomewithlivingincivilsociety• Expertevidencecanassistinestablishingamentalinjury,butitisn'trequiredasamatteroflaw

Principles:• Havetoshowmorethanmereannoyanceforcompensability,butdon'thavetoshowanidentifiable,diagnosticmental

illness'fromthebook'-canbeevidencedbyotherkindsofthingsinadditiontoorinlieuofexpertmedicalopinionthatshowadisorderispresent

DEFENCES

• Assessdefencesaftertheentireliabilityanalysisisdone• Needtoask:doesthedefendanthaveanydefencetonegatetheirliabilityentirely,orreducedamages?

ContributoryNegligence

• Rationale-onepersonbeingatfaultwillnotdispensewithanotherusingordinarycareforhimselfo Don'twhereasituationwherethedefendantisresponsiblefor100%oftheinjuryeventhoughtheplaintiffwas

responsibleinsomewaythemselves• Notacompletedefence,onlyservestolowerthedefendant'sdamages• Provinciallegislationimposesapportionmentofdamages

o AlbertaContributoryNegligenceAct-thecourtshallapportionthedamagesinproportiontothedegreeoffaultoftheparties;ifthisisn'tpossible,liabilityisapportionedequally

• Plaintiffmusthavebeenfoundtohaveactednegligentlyinordertoholdthem(atleastinpart)responsiblefortheirowninjury

• Defendantmustshow:o Plaintifffailedtotakereasonablecareo Plaintiff'sconductmustbeacauseof,orcontributeto,theinjury(Davies,Froom)o Plaintiff'sconductmusthavecreatedariskofreasonablyforeseeableinjuryandhislossmustbeatypethatfalls

withinthescopeofrisk• Ifdefendantcanshowthis,courtwillapportiondamagesbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendant

VoluntaryAssumptionofRisk

• Acompletedefence-courtshaveinterpretednarrowly

24

• Willonlybeappliedinrarecircumstances:(Dube)o Plaintiffmusthaveagreedexpresslyorbyimplicationtoexemptthedefendantfromliabilityfordamages

occasionedbythedefendant'snegligence(Priestley)o Notsufficientthattheplaintiffknewofthephysicalriskandchosetoundertakeit(expressorimplied),butthe

circumstancesmustbesuchthatthelegalriskwasvoluntarilyincurredbytheplaintiffandshebargainedawaytherighttosueforinjuriesresultingfromthedefendant'snegligence

o Plaintiff'sacceptanceoftheriskwillariseonlywherethereisanunderstandingbybothpartiesthatthedefendant'assumednoresponsibilitytotakeduecareforthesafetyoftheplaintiff,andthattheplaintiffdidnotexpecthimto(Birch)

• Oftenarisesincasesofwaiver• Questionbecomes,eveniftheplaintiffreadandsignedthedocument,doesitrepresenttheirunderstandingand

acceptanceofthephysicalriskofinjurythattheymightsustaino Whatstepshasthedefendanttakentomakesuretheplaintiffunderstandstheactivity,thattheywon'tbeableto

sueaftertheysign,etc.Illegality

• Acompletedefenceintendedtopreservetheintegrityofthelegalsystemandthejudicialprocessbynotallowingrecoveryforwhatisillegalandbymaintaininginternalconsistencyinthelaw

o Plaintiffshouldn'tbeallowedtorecoverwhentheyareengagedinillegalorimmoralconducto SCChasinterpretednarrowly,rarelyapplieso Ideathatitwillnotgenerallyoperatetodenydamagesascompensationforpersonalinjuryintort(Zastowny)

• Generallythedefencewillnotoperatetodenydamagesascompensationforpersonalinjuryintort• Thedefenceappliesonlyinverylimitedcircumstances,suchaswhere:

o Allowingtheplaintiff'stortclaimwouldpermittheplaintifftoprofitfromhis/herwrong§ Needtomakeadistinctionin'profit'-bybeingpaidfordirectdamagescausedtoyoubyaninjury

resultingfromdefendant'snegligence-thisisnotthesenseinwhichthetermprofitisused• Itisusedtopreventtheplaintifffromprofitingdirectlyfromtheirillegalact,ratherthandirectly

fromtheirinjury• Wouldapplytoaparticularheadofdamagesthatwouldcompensatetheplaintiffaboveand

beyondthedirectpecuniarydamagestheyareentitledtoo E.g.lossoffutureearnings-butifthesearebasedonanillegaljob,theideaofthis

defenceistopreventthemfrombeingcompensatedorearningaprofitunderthisheadofdamage

• Intendedtodeterandpunishtheplaintiffo Allowingtheplaintifftorecoverwouldcreateinternalinconsistencyinthelaw

§ E.g.aburglarplaintiffhasbeenfinedundercriminallawforbreakingintohomes,butthenallowedtosuethedefendantforthatamountaspartoftheirclaimforthedefendant'snegligence

§ Plaintiffshouldn'tbeabletoprofitfromtheirillegality,andthelawshouldn'tbeabletogivewithonehandwhatittakesawaywiththeother

• Thisshouldbeappliedasadefenceandnotaspartofdutyofcare

DAMAGES

• Ideaistocompensatetheplaintifffortheharmandbringthembacktotheiroriginalposition• Questionsconcernthekindofitemsforwhichthedefendanthastocompensatetheplaintiff,howthecourtistodetermine

asumthatwilladequatelycompensateatthecurrentmomentandintothefuture

Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd • Facts:21-year-oldplaintiffrenderedquadriplegicinatrafficaccident.Requiredcontinuouscarefortherestofhislife.

Appealwasaboutdamages,nodebateaboutliability(costoffuturecare,lossoffutureearnings,etc.)• Ratio:Generalprinciplesoflawwhenthecourtsaretoassessdamages.Onthefactsofthiscasewhereayoungperson

sufferswhollyincapacitatinginjuries-called'milliondollaraward'case,veryextremeinjuries Principlesofdamages:

25

• Pecuniarylosses-monetarylosses,outofpocketexpensesorfuturelossofearningsexpenseso Futurecare:standardofcare,lifeexpectancy,contingenciesoflife

§ ClaimfortheamountwhichmayreasonablybeexpectedtobeexpendedtoputthePinthepositionhewouldbeinifnotinthissituation

§ 'Moneyasasubstitute'especiallywheremoneycanneverfullyrepay§ Todetermine:

• Standardofcare-shouldthefuturecareoftheplaintiffbeinaninstitutionalorhomecareenvironment?

o Mitigationofdamages-Phastobereasonable,butnoplaceforthishereo Notmereprovision-anawardmustbemoderateandfairtobothparties,but

compensationshouldbethedrivingrationalebehindtheamountoffuturecareo Compensationnotsoughtonthebasisofsympathy,butwherebothcourtsbelow

favourthehomeenvironmentthenthisiswhatshouldbeawarded• Lifeexpectancy-nottolookatthestatisticsof23yearold'sgenerally,butofamalequadriplegic

specifically• Contingenciesoflife-relatetothedurationofexpense,thingsthatareunexpectedthatmight

stillhappengenerallyinlife.Oftenrelatetothelengthforwhichfuturecarewillhavetobepaido Prospectivelossofearnings:levelofearnings,lengthofworkinglife,contingencies,costoffuturebasic

maintenance(duplication)§ Aimedtorepresentthelossofearningcapacityoftheplaintiff§ Lookattheircareer,prospectsandpotentialpriortotheinjury§ Levelofearnings-valueoftheplaintiff'searningcapacityoverhisworkinglife(higherthanearningsat

thetimeoftheaccident)§ Lengthofworkinglife-howmanyyearstheyhaveleft§ Contingencies-withrespecttofutureearnings,thekindofunexpectedeventswhichmightaffectfuture

earnings-e.g.businessdepression,accidents,etc.orsomethingpositivelikepromotions.Turnsofthefacts.Courtwilllookatthenatureoftheplaintiff'soccupation

§ Duplicationofcostsoffuturebasicmaintenance-costsofbasicsfortheplaintiffbeforetheaccident,whichisassumedtocontinue

o Takeinflationandrateofreturnintoaccount-impactsthevalueofmoneyintothefutureo Allowfortaxtobeaccountedfor

• Non-pecuniarylosses–damagesfortheplaintiff’slossandenjoymentoflife,painandsuffering

o Mainlyapolicyconsideration-thesocialburdenoflargeawards§ Generallyguidedbyfairandreasonableconsiderations,keepinginmindthisissomewhatarbitrary§ Socialburdenoflargeawards-dangerofexcessiveburdenofexpense

• CourtwantedtocapawardssoCanadiannegligencecasesdon'tresultinmillionsofdollarsinawardslikeintheUS

o 'Functionalapproach'-todeterminingamountofnon-pecuniary§ Valuesintheinjuryinthelossofhumanhappinessofthevictimandassessesthecompensationthatis

requiredtoprovidetheplaintifffor"reasonablesolacefortheirsituation"§ Largeamountsshouldnotbeawardedonceapersonisproperlycompensatedintermsoffuturecare.

Additionalmoneyshouldbeprovidingmoregeneralphysicalarrangementsabovethosedirectlyrelatedtotheinjury

§ Mustconsiderindividualsituation-e.g.fingerbrokenforapianistversusanordinarypersono Thecourtsmustconsidertheindividualsituationofthevictim,butthereshouldbearoughupperparameteron

theseawards§ Customarytosetonlyonefigureforallnon-pecuniarylosses

o Inthecaseofayoungadultquadriplegiclikeinthiscase-$100000§ Otherthaninexceptionalcircumstances§ Indollarstoday:$376000§ Thisisstilltheceiling/maxamountthatplaintiffsgenerallycanrecoverfornon-pecuniarylosses§ Alsoincludesanoverallassessmentofreasonableness

• Totalofbothdamages:$817000inthiscase,thenreduced25%becauseofcontributorynegligence• Ratio:DamagesguidedbythiscaseinCanada.Capisstillthesamebutchangesbasedonthedollar

o Usefulforcategoryofdamagesandfactorsthecourtswilltakeintoaccount