Torts Winter Super Can

8/18/2019 Torts Winter Super Can

1/13

TORTS WINTER SUPER CAN

STRICT LIABILITY

Origin and Scope

TEST FOR STRICT LIABLITY

1) Bring mischievous object onto land (further extended to non-natural use of land) Rickards2) It escapes3) Causes damage

T!e idea "!a" e#erge$ %ro# #o$" o% "!e$e ca$e$ i$ "!a" $"ric" &ia'i&i"( ari$e$ pri#ari&( !en "!ere i$ an increa$e in danger*Ie* S"orage o% a"er+ c!e#ica&$+ 'io&ogica& agen"$+ e,p&o$i-e$+ and an( o"!er ind.$"ria& agen"$ "!a" co.&d+ i% "!e( e$cape or'eco#e dangero.$ !en a#a$$ed in a gro.p+ ca.$e !ar#*

E,cep"ion$/ No &ia'i&i"( en$.e$ i%/1) Natural use of land2) Act of God ( Rickards )3) alicious act of a third person ( Rickards )!) Approved b" cit" (Note #$ St. John’s Metro )%) No escape (ie& strict liabilit" does not extent to personal injur") Read NOTE/ Aldrdige v. Van Patter 0 racer drives through fence at trac' judge said doctrine of strict liabilit" extends to personaldamages sustained b" an"one to hom the probabilit" of such damage ould be naturall" foreseen& *+I, A*./, 01 N,*/IC* 2IABI2I*3 IN CANA0A

R(&and$ -* F&e"c!er (/"lands dug a ell on his land$ lea'ed onto 4letcher5s propert" and caused damage)6 B&ac '.rn 6 strictliabilit" ensues if6 #) Bring mischievous object onto "our land& (*his is li'ened to the concept of a non-natural use /ic'ards) 7)It escapes 8) Causes damage& Cairn$ 6 Natural vs& Non Natural use of land #) If it as a natural use of land $ then no liabilit"

ould result (ie& rain ater gets into the reservoir that flooded the mines)& 7) But there is liabilit" for a non natural use of land for the purpose of introducing something into the close hich as not in or upon itRic!ard$ -* Lo"!ian 05s bathroom pipe as plugged ith debris b" a third part"$ lea'ed and caused damage to 95s propert" )

Addition to :# of the /"lands v& 4letcher test6 No liabilit" if the act is an ordinar" use of the land (must be a special use of theland)&O"!er E,cep"ion$ 6 No liabilit" if it is an Act of God $ and no liabilit" if it is due to the malicious act of third person&Read -* L(on$ Co* (.xplosion injuring emplo"ee hose job it as to inspect explosives)6 If there is no escape$ then there is nostrict liabilit"& 4urthermore$ strict liabilit" does not extent to personal injur" see Note ; in CAN,6 Aldridge v. Van Patter

4e%ence$ "o S"ric" Lia'i&i"(

1* Con$en" o% "!e P&ain"i%% Co#p&e"e 4e%ence)hen consent is expressl" given$ no liabilit"

Circumstances under hich consent can be implied6 hen non-negligentl" produced damage occurred for the benefit of the plaintiff& Ac


2/13

7* Legi$&a"i-e A."!ori"( Co#p&e"e 4e%ence)here an activit" is authori?ed b" legislation$ no strict liabilit" is imposed unless the defendant is found to have been negligent&

Prod.c"$ Lia'i&i"(

In US product liabilit" is a strictl" liabilit" tort&In Canada *a'e different approach& 0onahue and ,tevenson is an example of that& 0ealt ith b" tort of negligence&

udges in Canada are still a bit uneas"6- ill read in arrant"- sa" there is a higher standard of care re


3/13

• in"en"ion? #ean$ "!e in"en"ion "o 'ring a'o." "!e ac" #o"i-e i$ irre&e-an")

T!e p.rpo$e o% "!i$ "(pe o% "or" i$ "o pro"ec" "!e 'odi&( in"egri"( o% indi-id.a&$

T!ere i$ no need "o pro-e a &o$$ or da#age 0 @.$" !ar#%.& or o%%en$i-e "o a rea$ona'&e per$on i" i$ $.%%icien" %or P "ode#on$"ra"e "!a" !e a$ direc"&( a%%ec"ed '( 49$ ac"+ and "!e on.$ i&& "!en $!i%" "o 4 "o $!o "!a" !e a$ no" neg&igen" orin"en"iona& ($oshen )

Yo. can 'e $aid "o !a-e in"ended "!e con$e .ence$ o% (o.r ac" i%/a) 3ou actuall" intend the conse


4/13

• 5arra"" ( )6 (a E "ear old pulled a chair from under 9) *he mere absence of an" intention to injure 9 or to pla" a pran'$or to commit an assault or batter" on 9 ould not absolve 0 from liabilit" if he in fact had the 'no ledge ('ne ithsubstantial certaint" ) that 9 ould probabl" attempt to sit do n here the chair had been&

• Carne$ ( )6 (0 anted to stri'e A$ but missed unintentionall" struc' B) If one person intentionall" stri'es at$ thro sat$ or shoots at another$ unintentionall" stri'es a 8 rd person$ he is not excused on the ground that it as a mereaccident$ but his actions ill constitute batter" (05s intention as to stri'e an unla ful blo $ to injure some person b"his act$ and it as not essential that the injur" be to the one intended) intent to hit someone is "ran$%erred "o in"en"ion

to stri'e the ife&• Ba$&e( ( )6 (0$ mo ing his la n$ accidentall" crossed onto 95s la n) ista'e as a defense does not or' in intentional

torts (05s act as voluntar" and he intended the result of his act$ and his intentions and 'no ledge ere not material)• S#i"! ( )6 (0 as carried on to 95s land b" force of others) *he trespass as of the part" ho carried upon the land

and not the trespass of 0 non-voluntar" actions cannot be intentional (i&e& sleep al'ing)• Ti&&ander ( )6 (8 "ear old dragged a bab" over #LL feet) A child of a tender age (ex& under ;) cannot be liable in

negligence for intentional torts because he does not have the mental capacit" to act > illfull"@ or >intentionall"@ not avoluntar" act lac'ed mental abilit" to appreciate or 'no the real nature of the act

• La $on ( ) (non-ps"chiatric patient attac'ed b" a ps"chiatric patient) here a person$ b" reason of mental illness$ isincapable of appreciating the nature or


5/13

2) WAS T=ERE ACTUAL =AR FUL OR OFFENSI8E CONTACT WIT= ANOT=ER PERSOND• An" touching of another person$ ho ever slight$ ma" amount to batter" ( (ole )• *he contact does not have to be harmful it must merel" be offensive to or un anted b" 9(ex& spitting)• hether or not 0 intended for the contact to be offensive is irrelevant ( !ettel )• A certain amount of un anted contact is considered b" the courts to be inevitable in ever"da" life if 7 or more meet in a

narro passage$ ithout an" violence or design of harm$ the one touches the other gentl"$ it ill be no batter" ( (ole )• *he contact ma" constitute batter" even if the purpose as to benefit 9 (ex& surger" or blood transfusion$ if performed

ithout consent)• *he contact ma" constitute batter" even if the victim as una are of the contact at the time it as made (i&e& sexual

touching of an anaestheti?ed person)• *he contact need not be ith 95s bod" it ma" be ith something 9 is carr"ing or earing

4e%en$e$ "o Ba""er(/ on.$ o% proo% on 4 "o $!o no %a.&" %oshen +or no" in"en"iona& or neg&igen" (ook "illander )• Consent sportsFhorsepla" based on expectations of the parties• ,elf-defense• 0efense of propert"• Necessit"• 2egal authorit"

Se,.a& Wrongdoing/ un anted sexual contact clearl" constitutes batter" and ma" also constitute other torts such as assault and

intentional affliction of emotional distress ST4$ 6 but for the lac' of 'no ledge ould the person have consentedJ

• Co&e ( )6 #) batter" re


6/13


7/13

• Coc ro%" ( )6 (9 moving fingers to ards 05s e"es$ 0 bit 95s finger off) ,elf defense re


8/13

7) Pri-a"e nece$$i"(/ In the case of great and imminent danger$ in order to preserve life$ the la ill permit encroachment on private propert"& But must be limited someho & ere hunger and ant is not defendable$ as it leads to chaos&

• 4 (er ( )6 (path opened through the sno through 95s propert"$ and since there as no other a" through$ 0 drovethrough the path) /egard for the public elfare is the highest la - if a high a" is out of repair and impassible $ a

passenger ma" la full" go over the adjoining (private) land $ since it is for the public good that there should be$ at alltimes$ free passage along thoroughfares for subjects of the realm - "a ing d.e care "o do no .nnece$$ar( da#ageinterference ith private propert" is justified b" the immediate urgenc" ith a due regard for public safet" andconvenience& 9rivate propert" rights are to be respected but rights of public are higher rights (public necessit")

• 8incen" ( )6 (0 tied his boat to 95s doc' during storm and the ship damaged the doc') here 0 prudentl" andadvisedl" avails itself of 95s propert" for the purpose of preserving its o n propert"$ 9 is entitled to compensation forthe propert" damages done (private necessit" no strong polic" consideration) dissent said no since no trespass& Ifit as necessar"$ there ould be no damages but here it asn5t&

• o.$e ( )6 (0 thre 95s propert" overboard the ship during storm to lighten the eight so that the ship ould not sin')In case of great and imminent danger $ in order to preserve life$ the la ill permit encroachment on private propert"

• So."! ar ( )6 (2ondon s


9/13

Fir$" "!ing "o &oo "o !en $.ing "!e ini$"er/ "!e $"a"."e e#po ering "!e ini$"er "o "a e "!e ac"ion in .e$"ioncon$ider "!e e,"en" and $cope o% a."!ori"( gran"ed) Proceedings Against the (rown Act $* 7 1) #a e$ &ia'i&i"(

*est6 ( /ust )IS T=ERE A 4UTY OF CARE OWE4D (frame or' in CAN,6)

a) 4oreseeabilit" proximit" enough to arrant imposition of dut"J ') Is there a ,tatutor" dut"J

IS T=ERE A REASON W=Y T=E 4UTY S=OUL4 NOT APPLYD1) 9olic" Considerations see belo2) ,tatutor" .xemptions

IS T=E 4ECISION A POLICY 4ECISION +0 AN OPERATIONAL 4ECISIONDPo&ic(6 (decision on hat to do) usuall" dictated b" financial$ economic$ social$ political factors staffFpersonnel ( Brown )constraints (ex& decision made b" people at the top of the chain of command$ using discretionar" po ers)Opera"iona& 6 (actuall" doing the thing in


10/13

(8) /epresentor must have acted negligentl" in ma'ing the representation6 made the statement in a careless manner (!) /epresentee must have relied$ in a reasonable manner$ on the negligent misrepresentation (causation6 objective test)(%) *he reliance must have been detrimental to the representee$ resulting in damages

=erc.&e$ 6 a$ "!ere re&ianceD 4actors to consider for re&iance 6 (also goes to hether reliance as reasonable)(#) .xpertise and 'no ledge of the representor (7) ,eriousness of the occasion

(8) An initial re


11/13


12/13

suffering ph"sical damage and to its propert" that it can be considered a joint venturer ith the o ner of the propert"$ the plaintiff can recover its economic loss even though the plaintiff has suffered no ph"sical damage to its o n propert"& *his is essentiall"the ANNS TEST

U$e UNLESS i" i$ a con"rac".a& re&a"ion$!ip

La Fore$" ((. .0. )6 unli'e c2achlin$ he starts ith e,c&.$ionar( r.&e then adds polic" exceptions - No dut" could arise inrespect to economic loss claims unless the case fell ithin one of the follo ing categories (not closed)6

(#) Cases here the claimant has a possessor" and proprietar" interest in the damaged propert"(7) General average cases (if "ou5re shipping something on a ship and there are high seas$ and the" have to expend somesupplies$ can pass on to passengers& one" the" provide to ship is a general average contribution)(8) Cases here the relationship bet een the claimant and the propert" o ner constituted a joint venture

ONLY .$e "!i$ %or re&a"iona& con"rac".a& re&a"ion$!ip$ o% p.re econo#ic &o$$

0ifference6 Insurance$ loss spreading in tort$ and if CN can5t sue$ CN should manage it5s ris' through contract$ and underminesidea that if people do something rong to someone else that the" should be compensated for it&

Iaco'.cci ( BV B )6 the categories of contractual relational economic loss are not closed and hether or not a ne categor"ought to be created is to be determined on a case-b"-case basis (using la forest5s test ould undermine that principle)

ARE T=ERE POLICY CONSI4ERATIONS W=IC= NE5ATE T=E 4UTY OF CARED

9olic" reasons for reluctance to allo recover" for pure economic loss6 ( )’A%ato )

(#) .conomic interests have been seen as less orth" of protection than bodil" securit" and propert"(7) /is' of liabilit" in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class(8) It ma" be more efficient to place the burden of economic loss on the victim(!) *he restrictive approach discourages a multiplicit" of la suits$ in favor of channeling claims into one action

• C*N*R* ( )6 (boat struc' damaged rail a" bridge o ned b" the government but used b" 9) c2achlin6 (liberalapproach) pure economic loss is recoverable here$ in addition to neg& foreseeable loss$ there is sufficient proximit"(ph"sical propin


13/13

Documents

Torts Winter Super Can