406 - Torts CAN- Feiley

8/19/2019 406 - Torts CAN- Feiley

1/17

Feiley Torts CAN Fall 2012I. INTRODUCTION TO TORTS [O : 2-7]

SM: 3 Evaniuk v. 79846 Manitoba Ltd. Man. !" #$99%&

II. NE'LI'ENCE

(. Int)odu*tion to N+,-i,+n*+ O: /01/72 C": $071$08

3 core elements that need to be pro en !or ne"li"ence:1# ne"li"ent act

a# not e ery act that ca$ses dama"e is ne"li"ent and %ill res$lt in liability b# acts a become ne"li"ent i! they !ail to meet a reasonable standard o! care

2# ca$sation b&% act and dama"e3# dama"e

'ssential elements o! ne"li"ence1# harm2# ca$sation

3# belo% standard o! care&ne"li"ent acta# not e ery act that ca$ses dama"e is ne"li"ent and %ill res$lt in liability b# acts a become ne"li"ent i! they !ail to meet a reasonable standard o! care

(# d$ty o! care o%ed)# not too remote6. plainti!!*s cond$ct +not a re,$irement b$t a consideration.

/here do yo$ dra% the line o% co$rts limit liability1# Dut o5 Ca)+ - the de!endant m$st o%e a d$ty to the plainti!! to be care!$l# ! no d$ty is o%ed the

de!endant is not liable !or the dama"e ca$sed# R+-ation i2# R+ ot+n+ o5 a) # ;)o is not liable !or any harm that occ$rs%hile yo$ are s iin" at their resort#

a# $s$ally the co$rt %ill r$le !or pl# i! they didn*t internali?e any o! the cla$se didn*t read it =9$stsi"ned it>


2/17

Co -+t+1# @ol$ntary ass$mption o! ris : complete de!ence i#e# !$ll contrib$tion/. ine itable accident: complete de!ence

". Standa)d o5 Ca)+ O: /714%2

1# Foreseeability o! is +( cases %ith ids and %ires.

2# Bi elihood o! ama"e +de"ree o! !oreseeability.a# 6olton 4tone: distinction b&% !oreseeable ris s that are s$bstantial and material and

!oreseeable ris s that are hi"hly $nli ely or mere possibilities3# 4erio$sness o! the threatened harm

a# %hile there may ha e been no "reater ris o! in9$ry to the plainti!! there %as a ris o! "reaterin9$ry to him + Paris v. Stepney: one eyed %elder.

(# Cost o! pre entati e meas$resa# Ware’s Taxi - childproo! loc s are cheap# Co$rt !o$nd breach o! 4oC#

b# Latimer v. AEC - cost to clean $p oil %as to close entire !actory# Co$rt did not !ind breach o!4oC#

)# 5tility o! Cond$ct

a# innocent bystanders s# p$blic sa!ety +police chase.i# Watt: ol$nteer !ire!i"hters one m$st balance the ris a"ainst the end to be achie ed# /e%ant to enco$ra"e ol$nteer !ire!i"hters

b# also loo at dis$tility - cond$ct that is antisocial or o! no al$eD# 'mer"ency 4it$ations - sho% leniency in an e ent that ca$ses e8citement con!$sion or an8iety7# C$stom and Appro ed Eractice - especially in medical cases

a# %ei"ht "i en to c$stom %ill ary# Eost-Accident Ereca$tions

G# H$dicial Eolicy - standard o! care is applied $ne enly b&% acti itiesa# e8# hi"h !or dri ers carriers o! passen"ers +planes trains. man$!act$rers o! prod$cts

i# de !acto strict liability

b# lo% !or de!endents in sportin" e ents pro!essional persons +doctors.10# economic analysis - can %e red$ce it to a balance o! the costs and bene!its11# hindsi"ht - hindsi"ht bias - easier to !oresee somethin" a!ter it has happened

Applyin" the standard o! care1# easonable !oreseeability o! ris is I'J to applyin" the standard o! care in all cases2# A reasonable person reco"ni?es %hat the ris s are and ta es preca$tions to protect others !rom them

$. Un)+a onab-+ Ri k

C": $7$ "o-ton A Ot +) v. Ston+ ou + o5 Lo)d . $90$2 (.C. 80% $90$2 $ (-- E.R. $%78

I'J All abo$t reasonable ris : /hat is reasonable/here on the spectr$m %ill a reasonable person thin its o ay to not eliminate the ris #

Consider: possible AN probable/a"onmond: doesn*t matter i! its probable ; i! its possible it is $nreasonable ris

/#Ko$nd 6olton!antastic possibility LMMMMMlMMMMlMMMMMMMMMMM probability

2


3/17

6e!ore 6olton # 4tone there %ere t%o types o! cases +end o! spectr$m.: impossible and probable No% there %as a third: Foreseeable 65T the chance o! it occ$rrin" %as in!initesimally small#

Analysis: 5se this analysis to determine i! the ris is reasonable: +the !oreseeability o! ris %hich reasonable people %ill a oid.

/ei"h the costs1# is o! harm

a# Bi elihood: less li ely %as a road not a school or b$sy intersection b# Foreseeability ball had "one o er be!ore b$t only D times - borderline

2# e"ree o! harm@s# the 6ene!it

3# Cost to eliminate the ris cost !or !ence OOOO4. 5tility o! Act cric et is "ood !or society

C": 370 Ba,on Mound #No. /& ;C #$966&

The test !or standard o! care can be !or possibility or !or probability or !or somethin" in bet%een dependant oncirc$mstances: here they considered ille"ality#

/. T + R+a onab-+ ;+) on/ho is the reasonable person

• A era"e• Not per!ect b$t ca$tio$s• Can ma e mista es and errors o! 9$d"ment and be e8c$sed !rom liability• Acts %ithin practical realities o! their sit$ation• Acts in a %ay the 9$d"e belie es they o$"ht to act - isn*t ho% its s$pposed to be done b$t it

$s$ally in practice t$rns o$t this %ay p#1 2 Note D

C": $79 au, an v. M+n-ov+ Co on ;-+a #$837&

• The Test: %hat %o$ld be the cond$ct o! a reasonable person o! ordinary pr$dence in the circ$mstanceso! the de!endant#

• The test is not s$b9ecti e it is ob9ecti e# t e8cl$des personal characteristics s$ch as intelli"encestren"th temperament etc# other%ise %o$ld ary on a case by case basis

o aystac !ire ; de!# said: = did my best># Actin" Bona Fide +in "ood !aith. %on*t matter • Eolicy Consideration: it can be $n!air: some %ill be held to a hi"her standard and others lo%er

C": $8$ "- t v. "i) in, a Bat+) Bo)k E


4/17

3. Cu to

C": $86 Ba-di*k v. Ma-*o- SCC #$99$&

Follo%in" c$stom is not a complete de!ence !or ne"li"ence no amo$nt o! "eneral comm$nity compliance%ill render ne"li"ent cond$ct reasonable in all circ$mstances#

4. Statuto) Standa)d O: $691$74

C": $89 R. v. Sa kat* +?an B +at ;oo- SCC #$983&+ ")+akin, a tatut+ do+ not + ua- a to)t #I t + *a + in t + U )i a 5a*i+ a to)t un-+ )ov+n

ot +)?i +&

1# 4tat$tory breaches in any case are s$bs$med %ithin the la% o! ne"li"ence2# There is no standalone tort o! stat$tory breach3# 6reach o! tort can be e idence o! ne"li"ence

(# 4tat$te can de!ine a standard o! care !or the sit$ation %hich yo$ can ar"$e that the co$rt sho$ld adopt asa reasonable standard +e8# ho% an inspection sho$ld ta e place. ass$mes elected o!!icials %o$ldn*t create an $nreasonable standard o! care in a stat$te

C": /%% R an v. i*to)ia #Cit & SCC #$999&

+ Co -ian*+ ?it a tatut+ i not a *o -+t+ d+5+n*+

1# 4tat$tes don*t e8tin"$ish obli"ation o! reasonable care they are rele ant2# e!# cannot a oid reasonable care obli"ation by merely sho%in" e idence o! compliance3# The nat$re +intent. o! the stat$te and the circ$mstances o! the case are critical

(# A breach can be e idence o! ne"li"ence and compliance can be e idence o! non-ne"li"enceeld: e9ected that the stat$te %as the standard o! care +p$blic policy re: railroads and lo%er standard o!

care d$e to their economic importance b$t no lon"er the case.

C": $96 'o))i v. S*ott E


5/17

1# s the child capable o! bein" ne"li"ent at la% or is the child able to ass$me responsibility !or his or heractions 4$b9ecti e ; speci!ic to T 4 child

a# ntelli"ence e8perience a"e alertness2# /hether the child %as ne"li"ent and to %hat de"ree Ki8 o! 4$b9ecti e and Pb9ecti e

a# %hat %o$ld a reasonable child o! that a"e intelli"ence and e8perience be reasonably e8pected todo 4$b9ecti e +another id li e this id. and ob9ecti e +reasonable child.

/hen do yo$ stop $sin" this test: 1) 1

b. M+nta- and ; i*a- Di abi-it

C": /$% Fia-a v. C+* an+k ("C( #/%%$&+ The la% ma es e8ceptions to the standard o! care o! indi id$als %ho are mentally incapable o! actin"

%ith reasonable care# The e!# m$st sho% that either o! the !ollo%in" are tr$e on the balance o! probabilities#Co ers t%o e8ceptions1# @PB T PN: /here the de!*s actions are in ol$ntary# An act m$st be ol$ntary the de!# m$st act on o%n

olition# The de!# m$st ha e %illed his&her body to act#'8# 4ei?$re asleep heart attac aller"ic reaction i! someone else p$shes yo$ +3 rd party ca$ses yo$ toma e an action.

-i! someone has these thin"s contin$ally +stro es sei?$res. then maybe it is not sa!e !or them to contin$edri in" in that manner and perhaps they co$ld be !o$nd to be at !a$lt !or choosin" to dri e2# FP '4''A6 BT J: /here the mental disability pre ents the de!# !rom complyin" %ith an ob9ecti elyreasonable standard o! care#

-b$rden o! proo! is on the de!endant-does the de!# ha e the capacity to und+) tand and a )+*iat+ t + dut o5 *a)+ o?+d at the timeT+ t: can the de!# pro e on her balance o! probabilities that his&her mental condition pre ented him&her!rom !oreseein" the in9$ry that co$ld res$lt

Ehysical disability:• ! they are the de!# $se !oreseeability test s$bstit$te physical disability• ! they are pl# e eryone m$st act in consideration that there are physically disabled persons

Ar"$ments !or and a"ainst lo%erin" the standard o! care !or the mentally and physically disabled:For Lowering Against Lowering

Victim Compensation We need to consider the fault element, we d o not want to createa strict liability s ystem.

Victim compensation is t he aim oftort law and we n eed to h avesomeone liable in order to make thevictim whole .

Mental Illness i s n ot visible If we t reat mental illness d ifferentfrom physical illness we willstigmatize the m entally i ll .Science has i mproved so thatmental illness is readilyidentiable.

How do we determine the ext ent ofsomeone’s mental illness? Wouldn’teveryone just cl aim mentally ill?

Caregivers Then why not hold thecaregivers l iable if it can beproven that they a re negligentinstead of punishing the mentallyill?

If we h eld them to the samestandard as an abled person it wouldencourage a h igher standard o fcare b y the c aregivers .

Objective Standard We have diluted the system for Any consideration for mental illness

)


6/17

children. Need consistency inthe s ystem - if we treat childrendifferently for certain reasons thenwhy would we not do the sam e forthe mentally i ll?

will erode the o bjective s tandard used for the reasonable m an.

Osborne Fairness and justice – do wereally want to punish or deterthose w ho are in c apable o facting with reasonable care?(p.43 O)

Compensation and loss distribution

*. ;)o5+ iona- N+,-i,+n*+

C": /$7 C a--and v. "+-- ("SC #$909&

TEST: Wilson v Swanson #$906& SCR u),+on 5ound not -iab-+.1# The s$r"eon $nderta es that he possesses the s ill no%led"e and 9$d"ment o! the a era"e#2# n 9$d"in" that a era"e re"ard m$st be had to the special "ro$p to %hich he belon"s +r$ral "eneral

practitioner di!!erent than specialist in $rban area.#3# ! the decision %as the res$lt o! e8ercisin" that a era"e standard there is no liability !or an error in

9$d"ment#

Bessons:1# 4tandard o! Care is that o! an a era"e pro!essional in the "ro$p that the de!endant belon"s

a# i!!ic$lty: %hat is that "ro$p 4ho$ld 5rban # $ral really matter anymore Ar"$ably no beca$se o! technolo"y

b# A"e&e8perience is not ta en into acco$nt + e!ence can*t be that yo$ are =ne%> to yo$r 9ob. ;nterns ha e di!!erent standard o! care than a practisin" physician

2# An error in 9$d"ment is distin"$ished !rom an act o! $ns ill!$lness or carelessness or d$e to lac o!no%led"e# 'rror in 9$d"ment is NPT necessarily ne"li"ence#

a. bene!it o! the do$bt "i en to the octors - as lon" as yo$ can !ind one octor %ho a"rees %ith thetreatment then the co$rt can not !ind ne"li"ence

Kedical treatments and proced$res + ter Neuzen v orn .=as a "eneral r$le %here a proced$re in ol es di!!ic$lt or $ncertain ,$estions o! medical treatment or comple8scienti!ic or hi"hly technical matters that are beyond the ordinary e8perience and $nderstandin" o! a 9$d"e or

9$ry it %ill not be open to !ind a standard medical practice ne"li"ent# Pn the other hand as an e8ception to the"eneral r$le i! a standard practice !ails to adopt ob io$s and reasonable preca$tions %hich are readily apparentto the ordinary !inder o! !act then it is no e8c$se !or a practitioner to claim that he or she %as merelycon!ormin" to s$ch a ne"li"ent common practice>

-e8ception %o$ld come $p maybe %hen there is ne% in!ormation a ailable to the p$blic

C": /4% ")+nn+) v. ')+,o) Ont. C #$973&1# 4tandard o! care is o! a reasonably competent and dili"ent solicitor

a# 4pecialties in la% are in!ormal b$t %o$ld raise the standard o! care2# 'rror o! 9$d"ment or i"norance o! the la% is not ne"li"ence

a# Jo$ need to no% the basicsi# Centra! Trust Co : =A solicitor is not re,$ired to no% all the la% b$t he m$st ha e

s$!!icient no%led"e o! the !$ndamental r$les or principles o! la% applicable to the partic$lar %or he has $nderta en#

D


7/17

b. ! yo$ don*t no% yo$ m$st see ad ice - yo$ ha e to no% %hat yo$ don*t no%

Consideration: do %e %ant cro%n prosec$tors to be s$ed in tort 4ame rational as 9$d"es ; a 9$d"e is ma in" adecision based on the in!ormation that they ha e at the time# E$blic Eolicy ; no precedent !or this in Canada#

d. E +),+n*

C": 30/ E +),+n* M+di*a- (id (*t RS( /%%% *. E17 ./.1# 4tat$te that lo%ers the 4tandard o! Care to "ross ne"li"ence in the case o! emer"encies#2# eco"ni?es that in that lo%er standard there is one !or the health pro!essional and one !or the ordinary

person Q and implies that they are no e,$al# ealth pro!essionals %ill ha e a hi"her standard o! care#3# /hy 'nco$ra"e resc$e $tility o! act p$blic policy#

C. Da a,+ O: 601662 C": $09 >>Mak+ u)+ to in*-ud+ t i >>

ama"e Q harm s$!!ered is necessary to ha e ne"li"ence/hy Pther%ise %e %o$ld ha e needless la%s$its +policy.

ama"es Q OO• Eec$niary Q meas$rable +medical e8penses !$t$re care costs loss o! income trial costs.• Non-Eec$niary Q ,$alitati e +pain and s$!!erin" loss o! en9oyment p$re economic loss.

o Capped at O2)- T 1GD)R 5ncapped in 54• E$niti e Q desi"ned to p$nish - contro ersial

Li itation +)iod : isco erability $le: time starts !rom the moment the in9$ry is disco ered ; $s$ally 2years 1 year !or medical ; other le"islated e8ceptions +child ab$se spo$sal ab$se physical or mental disability

ictim is a minor.

D. Cau ation>> Cau ation *a + a)+ un )+di*tab-+ in ? i* ?a t + ?i-- ,o. Ma b+ +ntion t i . Cau ation i an +< )+ ion o5 t + )+-ation i t at u t b+ 5ound to + test

• 6$t !or the de!endant*s ne"li"ence %o$ld the pl# ha e s$!!ered the losso No Q then the de!# ca$sed the losso Jes Q then the de!*s ne"li"ence is not a ca$se in !act o! the pl*s loss

• Application:1# denti!y the harm that is alle"ed to ha e been ca$sed by the de!#

2# solate the speci!ic act+s. o! ne"li"ence by the de!#3# Ad9$st the de!*s cond$ct so that it satis!ies the standard o! care o! a reasonable person all else e,$al#(# As i! the pl*s harm %o$ld ha e occ$rred#)# Ans%er the "ut #or ,$estion#

'8amples: $are%: !irecrac ers in mo ie theatre i! de! had t$rned on the li"hts in9$ry %o$ld not ha e occ$rred# East Texas T&eatres: bottle thro%n at head in mo ie theatre co$rt !o$nd in9$ry mi"ht ha e still occ$rred i!o%ner had thro%n ro%dy people o$t o! the theatre#

$. "a i* ( )oa* + [O : )3-D0]

7


8/17

C": $6/ au55 an v. TTC Ont C( #$909& a55Jd SCC #$96%& ( -i*ation o5 t + but 5o)= t+ t.

1# El# !ell bac %ards on an escalator and s$!!ered physical harm# There %ere teena"ers !oolin" aro$nd onthe escalator %hich ca$sed a man to !all %hich ca$sed her to !all# El# is s$in" the transit a$thority+ icario$s liability.

2# Fail$re to pro ide a better hand rail +r$bber and o al. or pro ide an attendant3# Ero ide a better hand rail and ha e an attendant

(# /o$ld the El# harm ha e occ$rreda# no e idence that the man or the yo$ths attempted to "rasp !or the hand rail d$rin" the e ent

b# no e idence that pl# %o$ld not ha e !allen i! her hands had been "raspin" a r$bber o al hand railc# no e idence that an attendant %o$ld ha e been able to stop the ids !rom ro$"h ho$sin"

0. =6$t !or> better hand rails and an attendant %o$ld pl# ha e s$!!ered harm J'4

C": $63 (t + v L+onati SCC #$996&R: As lon" as the de! is part o! the ca$se he is liable e en tho$"h the act in ,$estion alone is not eno$"h tocreate the in9$ry'8cl$si ity: pl# does not need to pro e that the de!*s ne"li"ence %as the sole ca$se or predominant ca$se o! the

pl*s dama"e as lon" as it is a ca$se#

F : El: pre-e8istin" in9$ry 1st

accident 2nd

accident stretchin"I: Can an in9$ry be apportioned b&% tortio$s and non-tortio$s ca$ses

: All ( ca$ses combined res$lted in herniated disc b$t car accident de!# is !$lly liable !or the total in9$ry(: Eolicy: the de!# needs to made %hole a"ain#

• T in Sku-- ;)in*i -+: yo$ ta e yo$r ictim as yo$ !ind them# ! the dama"e is "reater b&c o! a pre-e8istin" condition that does not diminish yo$r liability#

o Bi e an e8ception to !oreseeability: yo$ may not ha e !oreseen that the "$y already had a bad bac and %o$ld "et a herniated disc ; b$t too bad#

• Cr$mblin" 4 $ll principle: the pl# cannot be p$t in a better position than that %hich e8isted prior to thene"li"ent act#

o ! the dama"e %o$ld ha e occ$rred any%ays then de!# cannot be liable#

C": /6% Sn+-- v. Fa))+-- SCC #$99%& B +)+ d+5J av+ +*ia- kno?-+d,+ o5 t + 5a*t v+) -itt-+ +vid+n*+ on t + a)t o5 t + -. ?i-- u ti5

t + *ou)t in d)a?in, an in5+)+n*+ o5 *au ation i5 t +)+ i no +vid+n*+ to t + *ont)a)• The pl# m$st sho% e idence that is more than de minim$s +replaced in 'esur#i(e .• The de!# sho$ld ans%er it to a oid an ad erse in!erence o! ca$sation# The El*s e idence does not need to be scienti!ic proo!

F: El# became blind a!ter recei in" eye s$r"ery the s$r"eon ne"li"ently contin$ed operationEl# had other iss$es: 70 yrs old diabetes blood press$re already blind in one eye#IA : /hether the s$r"eon*s ne"li"ence ca$sed the blindness Jes

La?: The oB had shi!ted the b$rden o! proo! in $()&ee # /hy %e don*t li e this: pl# %o$ld al%ays %in ins$rance companies and the medical comm$nity !elt this %as too harsh p$blic policy: de!ensi e medicine +too many tests not "oin" ahead %ith ris y treatments.

SCC: KcShee %as too harsh and %e did not %ant to shi!t the entire le"al b$rden onto the de!endant# 4P /here it is scienti!ically impossible !or the pl# to pro e their case de!initely on the balance o! probabilities the

b$rden o! proo! on the pl# can be rela8ed# NP 4 FT#

Di55i*u-ti+ : av+ ?+ )+ -a*+ t + but 5o)= t+ t@ B at i v+) -itt-+ +vid+n*+=@ av+ ?+ -o?+)+d t +bu)d+n o5 )oo5 5o) *au ation@


9/17

C": /7% Cook v. L+?i SCC #$90$& S i5t t + bu)d+n o5 )oo5 to t + d+5. to + in Sne!! .

The material contrib$tion test is only $sed in special circ$mstances:1# it m$st be impossible !or the pl# to pro e ca$sation $sin" the =b$t !or> test2# the impossibility m$st be o$tside o! the pl*s control +li e scienti!ic no%led"e.3# the de!# m$st ha e created an $nreasonable ris o! in9$ry to the pl# in breach o! d$ty o! care o%ed to the

pl#(# pl# m$st ha e s$!!ered in9$ry !rom that ris

(: 1&2# There is no e idence o! impossibility AN 3&(# There is no s$bstantial connection bet%een the de!*salle"ed breach %ith the pl*s harm# 4o %e apply the =b$t !or> test#

: 6$t !or the desi"n o! the machine %o$ld the in9$ry ha e occ$rred Jes# Co$rt !o$nd !or 100U pl#*s

contrib$tory ne"li"ence#

SM: 8 C-+ +nt v. C-+ +nt SCC #/%$/& T i i t + k+ *a + )+,a)din, t + tat+ o5 Canadian -a? ?it )+,a)d to *au ation. It ov+))u-+d a--

)+viou *a + and )+*on*i-+ Fai)* i-d to Canadian *a + -a?.

[46] The foregoing discussion leads m e to the following conclusions a s t o the present state of the lawin Canada:(1) As a ge neral rule, a p laintiff cannot succeed unless sh e sh ows as a m atter of fact that shewould not have suffered the loss “but for” the negligent act or acts o f the defendant. A trial judge is t o

take a robust and pragmatic a pproach to determining if a plaintiff has e stablished that the defendant’snegligence caused her loss. Scientic proof of causation is not required.

(2) Exceptionally, a plaintiff may s ucceed by showing that the defendant’s co nduct materiallycontributed to risk of the plaintiff’s injury,where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would nothave occurred “but for” the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly i n fact responsible forthe loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is u nable to show that any o ne of thepossible tortfeasors i n fact was t he necessary o r “but for” cause of her injury, because each can point

G


10/17

to one another as the possible “but for” cause of the injury, defeating a nding of causation on abalance of probabilities against anyone.

F: El# on bac o! motorcycle %ith h$sband# Kotorcycle o erloaded and dri en too !ast# Nail p$nct$res rear tire#Kotorcycle crashes# El# brain in9$ry#I: /hether the h$sband*s ne"li"ent beha io$r +o erload speedin". ca$sed the pl*s in9$ry

/hether the =b$t !or> test sho$ld be $sedL: "ut 5o)= is a test o! !acts that m$st be applied in a rob$st and common sense !ashion#• 6$rden o! proo! is on the pl#• 4CC says a common sense =b$t !or> test %as $sed in: 4nell Athey /al er 'state es$r!ice#• all abo$t in!errin" !rom e idence this is the b$t !or test "i in" the co$rts e idence to ans%er the =b$t

!or> ,$estiono impossibility is not met in these cases: it is abo$t !act$al impossibility not scienti!ically

impossible: abo$t pointin" the !in"er at each other • The co$rt in!ers e idence %hich the de!# can reb$t#

=Mat+)ia- *ont)ibution > is a test o! ris %hen common sense impossibility is present#VAbsence o! scienti!ic e idence %ill not o$st the =b$t !or> test#

• El# m$st pro e ne"li"ence b$rden o! proo! is on the de!# to e8c$lpate himsel!#• t is a matter o! policy to meet "oals o! ne"li"ence:

o Compensation !airness !a$lt element +across all de!*s. deterrence +no pointin" the !in"er toescape liability.

• To be $sed in rare sit$ations %here 9$stice and !$ndamental principles o! tort re,$ire it:1# K$ltiple tort!easors +Note that in /al er there is only one de! b$t the ca$sal chain bro e do%n and

the KC test is applied.#2# All are at !a$lt and one ore more has in !act ca$sed the El*s in9$ry#3# The pl# %o$ld not ha e been in9$red =b$t !or> their collecti e ne"li"ence

a# The =b$t !or> brea s do%n %hen applied indi id$ally

(# 6eca$se each de! can point the !in"er at the other it is impossible !or the pl# to sho% on a balance o! probabilities %hich one ca$sed the in9$ry#• T NI PF T 4 /AJ: Apply the =b$t !or> test to the "lobal sit$ation&collecti e "ro$p# ! yes then

mo e to the material contrib$tion test to hold indi id$als liable#• /hen can %e NPT $se KC The in9$ry is d$e to !actors $nconnected to the de!# and not the !a$lt o!

anyone + 'esur#i(e* C!ements .(: =6$t !or> the o erloadin" and speedin" %o$ld the accident ha e happened NP

• /hy not $se the =KC> testo '8pert e idence says the =b$t !or> test !ails ; it isn*t scienti!ic b$t "ood eno$"h#o Not m$ltiple tort!easors a sin"le de!endant case#

C": /73 Fai)* i-d v. '-+n av+n Fun+)a- S+)vi*+ Ltd. L #/%%/& B+ t+ a?a 5)o but 5o)= t+ t ? +n t +)+ a)+ ,ood o-i* )+a on to do o. B+ *an on- do t i

? +n: t +)+ i i o ibi-it o5 )oo5 # o)+ t an on+ to)t5+a o)& (ND ? +n t + in u) u55+)+d i t + a +a t + )i k *)+at+d.F: K$ltiple employers e8posed employee to asbestos# No %ay to determine %hich employer ca$sed disease#I: Ca$sation: there is no %ay to pro e %hich employer ca$sed the disease d$e to the nat$re o! the disease andthe characteristics o! asbestos#Eolicy: balancin" need o! employers to not be held responsible !or dama"e they did not ca$se s# need tocompensate pl*s %ho ha e s$!!ered "ra e harm#

10


11/17

on*t %ant an abs$rd res$lt re: deterrence: i! %e did not !ind an employer liable they co$ld contin$etheir practices %itho$t liability by only hirin" employees %ith pre io$s e8pos$re to asbestos#(: ! the D characteristics at the top o! p#27( are present then %hiche er approach %e $se %ill a!!ord a remedyto the plainti!!# Three possible approaches#

$. ( - at+)ia- *ont)ibution to a-- + -o +)2# 4hi!t the b$rden o! proo! to the de!endant ; they don*t do this#3# Apply policy considerations

: The de!endant m$st bear the impossibility o! precise se"re"ation o! the ca$se +thin 2 !ire e8ample. basedon the material contrib$tion test based on the creation o! ris #

Clements allo%s Fairchild to e8ist %ith Canadian Case la%#6e!ore Clements:Fairchild W 4nell Q NP: ca$sation %as based on e idence add$ced not solely on the basis o! the ris created#Fairchild W Coo Q Jes in res$lt No in reasonin"# Fairchild did not re erse the b$rden o! proo!#Fairchild W /al er Q No: only one tort!easor and he %as a third party#

/. M+di*a- Di *-o u)+ and Cau ation: ( Di55+)+nt Ca + o) Not@ O : 1( -1)D 2

Dut o5 Ca)+ : (i) to ans%er ,$estions +ii. to ol$nteer in!ormatione8tent o! either is based on !acts o! the case

Standa)d o5 Ca)+: !$ll disclos$re standard + 'ei"!+ NPT a pro!essional standard +%e don*t hand it to themedical pro!ession.

s$!!icient in!ormation the medical comm$nity P'4 NPT determine %hat this is all material ris s disclosed +lo% ris o! serio$s AN hi"h ris o! minor. $nclear ho% m$ch physician m$st in,$ire abo$t patient*s personal circ$mstances

o +i#e# emer"ency doctor %ill no% less abo$t the patients circ$mstances than a !amily doctor. de!# m$st ass$re that patient $nderstands +$se lan"$a"e don*t rely on ideos&broch$res. pro ide in!o abo$t alternati e treatment

patient may %ai e this ri"ht applies to all medical practitioners 'XC'ET PN: emotional or psycholo"ical condition o! the pl +they can*t handle it. or an emer"ency

Cau ation: /hether the patient %o$ld ha e consented to the proced$re i! the de!# physician had per!ormed herd$ty to in!orm the patient o! the material ris s o! treatment

Katerial is Q si"ni!icant ris s that pose a real threat to li!e health or com!ort#o ncl$des $n$s$al or special ris Q not ordinary b$t ha e been no%n to occ$r occasionally

T+ t 5o) Cau ation4$b9ecti e: As the patient %hat they %o$ld ha e done +%ill al%ays allo% patient to %in.Pb9ecti e: %hat %o$ld a reasonable person ha e done +%ill al%ays allo% r# to %in.

Kodi!ied: /hat %o$ld a )+a onab-+ +) on in t + -J a)ti*u-a) *i)*u tan*+ ha e done Circ$mstancesQ a"e income marital stat$s iss$es raised %ith physician patient*s reasonable

belie!s !ears desires e8pectations# +/hat is reasonable Thin abo$t c$lt$ral di ersity.

C": //0 R+ib- v. u, + SCC #$98%& T + tanda)d o5 *a)+ i 5u-- di *-o u)+. Cau ation i ba +d on ? at a )+a onab-+ +) on in t + ati+ntJ

o ition ?ou-d av+ don+.F: El# (( years o! a"e $nder%ent serio$s heart s$r"ery !or bloc a"e s$r"ery %as competently per!ormedd$rin" or immediately !ollo%in" pl# s$!!ered a massi e stro e le!t him paraly?ed on the ri"ht side o! the bodyand impotent#

11


12/17

! s$r"ery: stro e paralysis and deathR ! no s$r"ery: stro e deathEl# %as a year a%ay !rom recei in" a li!etime retirement pension mmediate s$r"ical treatment %as notimperati e

I: /hether the physician committed battery or ne"li"ence: No battery ; this re,$ires lac o! consent to the operation itsel! +'8: consent !or hernia operation and

s$r"eon !$ses spine p#227.# Ne"li"ence

6reach o! 4oC: pl %ron"ly $nderstood he %o$ld be better o!! and e! admitted to not disclosin" all ris sCa$sation: No immediate re,$irement !or the proced$re El# %o$ld ha e %aited $ntil pension to ha es$r"ery or opted !or a shorter normal li!e rather than a lon"er disabled li!e

E. Dut o5 Ca)+ O : D7- 22

$. Dut '+n+)a-- -i itin, d+vi*+ to deny or restrict liability e en %hen the de!*s ne"li"ence may ha e ca$sed a loss %here

the loss s$!!eredis not one that the la% deems %orthy o! protection%here the acti ity is one that tort la% does not consider appropriate to re"$late

%here the person h$rt is not tho$"ht to be someone %ho is entitled to the protection o! the la% Dut and t + 'ovJt: %hy is the "o *t di!!erent

acts !or e erybodyma es policyi! indi id$als can s$e the "o *t anytime the "o *t is ne"li"ent the "o *t %o$ld spend more timede!endin" themsel esthe cost o! this %o$ld be s$per hi"h and %o$ld be bo$rne by the ta8payersthe "o *t ma es decisions all the time balancin" ario$s interests

Statuto) Duti+%ill tr$mp the common la%

does the stat$te e8empt "o employee !rom liability T + o5 a) : co$rts more li ely to !ind d$ty in the case o! physical harm or harm to property as they are

meas$rable# Esycholo"ical and !inancial harm are not as easy to pro e#

C": /86 Dono, u+ v. St+v+n on L #$93/& E tab-i +d n+i, bou) ood )in*i -+ o5 dut ba +d on *on*+ t o5 )o


13/17

1# oes this !all %ithin a reco"ni?ed cate"ory o! relationships %here a d$ty o! care has pre io$sly beenreco"ni?ed J'4 Q d$ty NP Q no el case#

2# ono"h$e Test: /as there a pro8imate relationship s$ch that the harm to the pl# %as reasonably!oreseeable as the conse,$ence o! the de!*s acts or omissions J'4 Q prima !acie d$ty

3# Kicro-Eolicy: are there any reasons that tort liability sho$ld not be reco"ni?ed is a is this relationship b&% the de!# and the pl + Anns . NP Q Erima !acie d$ty

e8pectations representations reliance property other interests

(# esid$al Eolicy: ! there is a prima !acie d$ty o! care are there any resid$al policy considerationso$tside o! the relationship o! nei"hbo$rhood that may ne"ate the d$ty o! care

4ociety "enerally: do %e %ant to establish this d$ty in o$r societyndeterminacy: ho% !ar %ill the d$ty e8tend /hat abo$t endless losses

o Ba% needs to be determinateo Tort la% doesn*t %ant to ban r$pt de!*s

So ernment policy operation + ,ust Case: barriers on /histler hi"h%ay "o liable.o Eolicy: p$re policy decisions are imm$ne !rom tort# So needs !reedom to ma e decisions

"o ern choose policy ; this is %hy %e elect them# And %ho is the tort!easor All o! parliament

o Pperation: liable !or the carryin" o$t o! the policy b&c yo$ can identi!y the tort !easor +tr$cdri er inspector.#

F: So employee at a re"istrar didn*t sh$t do%n a !ra$d$lent in estor p$blic lose moneyI: 4ho$ld the la% o! ne"li"ence reco"ni?e a d$ty o! care b&% a stat$tory re"$lator and member o! the p$blic!oreseeably a!!ected by his&her decisions( : 1# Ne% d$ty# 65T there is a stat$te %hich creates the 9ob and the d$ties# The stat$te does not impose a d$tyo! care to in estors e8cept !or actions in bad !aith +!ra$d the!t.2#Foreseeable JesR Ero8imate No(# esid$al Eolicy: re"istrar is balancin" pri ate and p$blic interests decisions are ,$asi-9$dicial +discreation tocreate policy. %here %o$ld liability end +3 000 in estors b$t %hat abo$t id %ho can*t "o to $ni ersity.ta8payer %o$ld pay !or the loss

C": 3%$ i-- v. a i-ton1B+nt?o)t ;o-i*+ S+)vi*+ "oa)d SCC #/%%7& add+d t at )+ idua- o-i* *on id+)ation u t b+ *o +--in, and +)iou i.+. +vid+n*+ t at it ?i--

o**u) ;o-i*+ o?+ a dut o5 *a)+ to t o + t + inv+ ti,at+ t + tanda)d o5 *a)+ i t at o5 a )+a onab-+ o-i*+

o55i*+). "ut *ou)t a)+ )+-u*tant to 5ind )o5+ iona- duti+ b+*au + o5 )+ +)*u ion # o-i*+ D)&

F : police do shoddy %or to arrest abori"inal s$spect !or robbery +line-$p other cl$es##.( -i*ation o5 Coo +)H(nn T+ t to t + ;o-i*+HSu +*t )+-ation i$. Nei"hbo$rhood test: pro8imate and !oreseeable direct personal relationship s$spect is sin"led o$t/. Mi*)o1 o-i* ('(INST a dut

%o$ld a d$ty inhibit or inter!ere %ith their d$ty o%ed to the "eneral p$blico p$blic pri ate d$ties are incompatible

ncreased costs o! in esti"ationChillin" e!!ect - %ill this lead to police not in esti"ate thin"s in order to not be held liabledo %e %ant police ha in" to loo o er their sho$lder on their day to day %or

o do %e %ant to also b$rden them %ith potential ne"li"ence la%s$its Their o erall d$ty to the p$blicsho$ld predominate their relationship

police: my relationship has nothin" to do %ith "$ilt or innocence that is the 9ob o! the co$rtsMi*)o1 o-i* FOR a dut

this is a reco"ni?ed d$ty - a reco"nition o! nei"hborhood

13


14/17

p$blic d$ty s# ri"hts o! the s$spect Q more %ei"ht sho$ld be "i en to the ri"hts o! the s$spect: 4omeone"oin" to 9ail: losin" 9ob losin" !reedomF$rther the s$preme la% o! Canada is the Charter this d$ty %o$ld enhance Charter ri"htsE$blic interest - %e %ant to a oid %ron"!$l con ictions

o i! there is no disincenti e !or in esti"atin" o!!icers to be care!$l %e %ill li ely ha e more %ron"!$lcon ictions than less#

nstit$tionali?ed acism - all o! Canada*s policies: m$ltic$lt$ralism Charter# /e don*t operate on racism -this is applicable in li"ht o! this e idence

enial o! 9$stice - absence o! remedy ; s$spect co$ld ne er be made %hole a"ain i! he is %ron"!$llycon icted

3. R+ idua- o-i*Y$asi-9$dicial po%ers in the case la% ha e been !o$nd to not ha e an associated d$ty +9$d"e.

e,$irement !or $se o! discretion- do %e %ant co$rts second "$essin" acts o! discretionChillin" e!!ect - broad sense across CanadaFlood o! liti"ation - anyone !o$nd not "$ilty %o$ld ha e a ca$se o! action

ndeterminate liability - %here does this end /hat are the bo$ndariesTort reco ery !or ac,$itted persons %ho may be "$ilty - do %e %ant people %ho may are "$ilty b$t ha e

been ac,$itted ha e the ability to "et dama"es in tort this isn*t a 9$st o$tcome: not eno$"h e idence that the policy considerations o$t%ei"hed the prima !acie d$ty o! care#

/. Un5o)+ ++ab-+ ;-ainti55 o) ;o-i* @

C": 3/$ a #"ou) i--& v. Goun, L #$943& T +)+ i no u* t in, a a d+)ivativ+ dut = t + dut u t b+ o?+d to t + -. and not to o +bod

+- + ;-. u t b+ 5o)+ ++ab-+ not t + -J t + o5 a) .

C": 3/4 Dob on v. Dob on SCC #$999& ( ot +) do+ not o?+ a -+,a- dut to +) unbo)n * i-d -uva! v Se uin : a d$ty e8ists bet%een an $nborn child and a third party

o A tort!easor is as liable to a child %ho as s$!!ered prenatal in9$ry as to the ictim %ith a thin s $ll orother physical de!ect#

'8ample o! a d$ty !ailin" !or policy reasons :o Kicro-policy: $ni,$eness a$tonomy o! mother impact on reli"io$s choiceso esid$al policy: society sho$ld enco$ra"e %omen to be pre"nant %o$ld impact all !ertile %omen

doesn*t meet "oals o! tort +deterrence compensation. le"islation is pre!erred

3. Fai-u)+ to (*t C": 3/9 1 33%4ho$ld %e impose criminal liability !or !ail$re to inter ene

• hi"her b$rden o! proo! in criminal la% and %ill better protect the resc$er o %o$ld re,$ire that there is no do$bt that they co$ld* e inter ened %itho$t dan"er to themsel eso %o$ld better protect !reedom and a$tonomy b&c o! this hi"her b$rden o! proo!

• do%nside: once it is criminal the ictims %ill not be made %hole a"aino yo$ "et re en"eo b$t no OO compensation M co$ld establish a criminal !$nd +this is a thin".

• is the penalty associated %ith a criminal con iction too hi"ho %o$ld %e %ant to ma e it a s$mmary o!!ence: yo$ don*t "et a criminal recordo less rami!ications than an indictable o!!ence

1(


15/17

a. Non5+a an*+= and Mi 5+a an*+=

C": 33% =The oly 6ible>

C": 33$ o) -+ +t a-. v. Ma*La)+n SCC #$97/&(ut o)it 5o): no dut to )+ *u+ in Canada

• TH: there is no d$ty to resc$e another person in peril e en %here there is little ris or e!!ort in ol ed• CoA: there is no d$ty to ta e positi e action M most deeply rooted principles in the common la%

-ono &ue only tal s abo$t a d$ty not to ca$se harm it doesn*t e8tend to a d$ty to con!er a bene!it

C": 3331334 R+-ation i R+ ui)in, R+ *u+ t i ?i-- b+ +vid+n*+ o5 a dut but not a -a dunk=

b. R+-ation i o5 E*ono i* "+n+5itLook 5o): any indirect economic bene!its: social sit$ations can create economic benei!ts +ha in" the boss o er

b$siness meetin" T$pper%are.Cro(%er and Sundan(e Nort&/est 'esorts : s i resort %ith t$bin" competition and alcohol#• $ty: to inter ene +W. and stop dr$n s !rom "oin" do%n the hill and to resc$e +omission. him !rom himsel!#• Eolicy reason: %e don*t %ant people to OO !rom e8ploitin" others

C": 334 o)dan ou + Ltd. v. M+no? SCC #$974&A d$ty is established:

• Ero8imity: the bar ne% him he had been e9ected be!ore no%n !or ta in" ris s• Foreseeability: %eather ni"ht not %earin" bri"ht clothes rainin" sno% ban s narro%ed road closest

%ay home %as hi"h%ayThis decision hin"ed on the relationship !or economic bene!it

• 6eca$se scope o! d$ty only applies to sit$ations %here people pay !or alcohol• Pther%ise d$ty %o$ld be too broad +thin o! ho% o!ten people drin alcohol.

Eolicy considerations• Cost-bene!it: bar "ets the pro!its b$t ta8payers pay !or any dama"e +healthcare system.

Statut+ U + tatut+ to bo- t+) o-i* : i5 t +)+ i a tatut+ )+-at+d to t + i u+ t +n -+,i -atu)+ a5ound t at t +)+ i a o-i* )+a on ? t i dut ou-d b+ )+*o,ni +d

• ecision didn*t t$rn on this b$t it helped• 2 separate stat$tes indicate that yo$ sho$ldn*t sell li,$or to into8icated persons e idence that a breach

o! the stat$te is a breach o! the 4oC le"islat$re ob io$sly %ants this to be part o! the 4oC• loo !or %hether a "o ernin" body has addressed this and they ha e ta en on a policy position

mportance o! no%led"e:• Ste/art : co$ple r$ns a tab at a hotel so hotel no%s ho% many drin s are ordered men o er drin and

dri e %omen not dr$n car accident#• $ty Jes o er-ser ers can o%e a d$ty to an innocent third party• Ca$sation not met ; hotel didn*t no% sober %oman %o$ldn*t ha e dri en

*. R+-ation i o5 Cont)o- o) Su +)vi ion C": 346Eerson K54T enter into relationship %illin"ly no%in" that sit$ations may de elop %hich %ill re,$ire them toact in order to assist others#'8: parent&child teacher&p$pil employer&employee carrier&passen"er prison&inmate hospital&patientocc$pier&entrant +Wa!di(% . li!e"$ard

d. C)+ation o5 Dan,+)

1)


16/17

C": 347 Ok+ v. B+id+ T)an o)t Ltd. Man C( #$963& I5 ou *)+at+ a dan,+) and ou )+*o,ni + it ou av+ *)+at+d a )+-ation i and t +)+5o)+ a dut

• Collision %ith si"n %as not ne"li"ent b$t he is di!!erent !rom other motorists beca$se he "ot o$t o! his carin esti"ated the dama"e and )+*o,ni +d the dan"er#

• $ty: /as the harm !oreseeable e created a pro8imate relationship %ith other dri ers since he reco"ni?eda ris he created to other dri ers# ' idence Q tellin" the "ara"e#

• 4oC: to noti!y the police

+. R+-ian*+ R+-ation iCan b+ *)+at+d ?it b+ avio)

$er(er : de!*s practice o! loc in" a %ic er "et le!t it $nloc ed once someone hit by train de! !o$nd liable Nord -euts(&e : cro%n permitted li"hts to be displaced %hich ca$sed a collision b&% t%o ships %ho relied on theli"hts

C": 349 +-+nko v. 'i b+- ")o . N+? Go)k SC #$930&• 4tore o%ner *)+at+d a d$ty by mo in" a sic person to another room created a relationship o! )+-ian*+ #• ! a de! $nderta es a tas e en i! $nder no d$ty to $nderta e it the de! m$st not omit to do %hat an ordinary

man %o$ld do in per!ormin" the tas #• Jo$ can create&ass$me a d$ty# /hen by meddlin" in matters %ith %hich le"alistically yo$ ha e no concern#

5. Statuto) Duti+

C": 303 OJRou)k+ v. S* a* t SCC #$973& ;)ivat+ dut to )+ *u+ *an b+ i o +d ? +n t +)+ i a tatuto) dut

Eolice o!!icers "et po%er !rom stat$te: Eolice Act and i"h%ay Tra!!ic Act#Are these d$ties o%ed to the p$blic or to the pl# in partic$lar• Eolice o!!icer is di!!erent !rom a passer-by they o%e a d$ty to an indi id$al citi?en• i!!# b&% "eneral d$ty and speci!ic d$ty:

o Seneral d$ty Q !irin" internal p$nishmento 4peci!ic d$ty Q ci il liability

,. Cat+,o)i+ o) ;)in*i -+ @

C": 339 C i-d v. D+ o) +au< SCC #/%%6& 9$st ha in" a party %here alcohol is ser ed and ppl o er drin in" is not eno$"h to impose a d$ty to 3 rd parties

that may be in9$red• yo$ need to ha e INP/B' S'• d$ty comes o$t o! !indin" creation o! $nreasonable ris !or !oreseeable plainti!!

o ha in" the party creates a ris o M ho% to approach this on a test: loo at !actors and determine i! they either increase or decrease

the ris increase: no !ood no %ay homedecrease: ser in" !ood ta8i chits

• %hat %o$ld the d$ty be somethin" = easonable>• Seneral no%led"e o! the ris s o! is not eno$"h to !ind a d$ty o! care# $ty %ill be !o$nd:

1D


17/17

o ost attracts and in ites 3 rd parties to an inherent and ob io$s ris that the host has created orcontrols +Cro(%er* drin in" "ames.

o Eaternalistic relationship o! s$per ision and control e8ists + Sutter: mom b$ys e".o E$blic !$nction or commercial conte8t +commercial at bar !irm party net%or in" "ol! to$rnament.o easonable reliance +in itation says: lea e yo$r car at home.

17

Documents

406 - Torts CAN- Feiley