1

INTRODUCTIONTOTORTS

• PrinciplesofTortLawàcompensation,deterrence,justice,fairness• ObjectivesofTortLawàpunitive,compensatory,deterrence,appeasement,correctivejustice,

therapeuticjurisprudence,educationalrole,ombudsmanrole

• RestitutioadIntegrum–byshiftingmoneyfromthedefendanttotheplaintiffbecausethatisalltortlawcando–you’renoteverreallymakingthemwhole

• TortEffectiveness–Ifwecandeterthisfromhappeningtofuturevictims• Purposeoftortlaw–adjustthelossesandaffordcompensationforinjuriessustainedbyoneperson

asaresultoftheconductofanother

NEGLIGENCE

INTRODUCTIONTONEGLIGENCE

Negligenceisconcernedwithcarelessness.

Threeelementsofnegligence:

1) DutyofCare

2) BreachofDuty

3) Causation(damageflowingfrombreach)

DUTYOFCARE

DUTYGENERALLY

LECTURENOTES–ANNSCOOPERTEST(UNIFIED)(NOVELDUTY)

• AfterCooper,thegeneraltesttoestablishanewdutywasasfollows(donotneedtogothroughthisanalysisifthedutyhasalreadybeenrecognizedbythecourts)

o StageOne:

§ Wastherereasonablyforeseeableharm?Ifyes,§ Wasthereaproximaterelationshipbetweentheparties(mayinclude“policy”factors

applyingtorelationshipbetweenparties,proximityinfact:arelationshipwhereareasonablepersonwouldforeseetheharmcausedtotheplaintiff);ifyes

o StageTwo:

§ Arethereanyresidualpolicymattersnegatingorlimitingtheduty(policyfactorsoutsidetherelationshipbetweentheparties)(CoopervHobart)

2

DONOGHUEV.STEVENSON

Facts• Pwasdrinkingabeeratarestaurant;Disthemanufacturer;beerhadasnailatthebottom;Plgotsick

afterdrinking;doestheDoweadutytotheconsumerofthebeverage?Analysis/Rule

• Youmustnotinjureyourneighbouràwhoisyourneighbour?àpersonswhoaresocloselyaffectedbymyactthatIoughttoreasonablyhavethemincontemplationasbeingaffectedwhenIamdirectingmymindtotheactoromissioninquestion

• Categoriesofnegligenceareneverclosed

HOMEOFFICEV.DORSETYACHT

Facts• Boysstoleayachtfromaguardandcauseddamageatayachtclub

Analysis/Rule• The“GoldenRule”fromDonoghuecanapplyinanysituationunlessthereisacompellingreasonforit

nottoapply• “Wherehumanactionformsoneofthelinksbetweentheoriginalwrongdoingofthedefendantand

thelosssufferedbytheplaintiff,thatactionmustatleasthavebeensomethingverylikelytohappenifitisnottoberegardedasnovusactusinterveniensbreakingthechainofcausation.Theverylikelinessofithappeningiswhatestablishesthelikelihoodofithappeningasaresultofthewrongfulorcarelessactionsofthedefendant”

ANNSV.MERTONLONDONBOROUGHCOUNCIL

• Twoparttest:o Whether,asbetweentheallegedwrongdoerandthepersonwhosuffereddamagethereisa

relationshipofproximityorneighborhoodsuchthat,inthereasonablecontemplationoftheformer,carelessnessonhispartmaybelikelytocausedamagetothelatter;ifyes,aprimafaciedutyarises

o Ifyes,whetherthereareanyconsiderationswhichoughttonegate,reduceorlimitthescopeofthedutyorclassofpersonstowhomitisowedorthedamagestowhichabreachofitmaygiverise

KAMLOOPSV.NIELSON(ELABORATEDONTHEANNSTEST)

• Isthereasufficientlycloserelationshipbetweentheparties…sothat,inthereasonablecontemplationofthedefendantcarelessnessonitspartmaycausedamagetothatperson?

• Arethereanyconsiderationswhichoughttolimit:o Thescopeofthedutyando Theclassofpersonstowhomitisowed,oro Thedamagestowhichabreachofitmaygiverise?

HILLV.HAMILTON-WENTWORTHPOLICESERVICESBOARD

Facts• Hillwasinvestigated,arrested,tried,wrongfullyconvictedandacquittedafter20monthsinprisonby

policefor10robberies

3

Issue• Canthepolicebefoundforthetortofnegligentinvestigation?

Rule/Analysis• Isthereapreviouslyrecognizedduty?àNo,sowemustgothroughtheAnnsTest

o Doestherelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendantdisclosesufficientforeseeabilityandproximitytoestablishaprimafaciedutyofcare

o Ifyes,arethereanyresidualpolicyconsiderationswhichoughttonegateorlimitthatdutyofcare?

Conclusion• Policeoweaprimafaciedutyofcaretosubjectsofinvestigation,butnotbreachedinthiscase

COOPERV.HOBART

Issue

• Doesastatutoryregulatorofmortgagebrokersoweaprivatelawdutyofcaretoindividualinvestors?

Rule/Analysis• SecondbranchofAnnswillbeinvokedtonegateaprimafaciedutyofcareforreasonsofpolicyonlyin

rarecircumstances,andforresidualpolicyconsiderations(outsidetherelationshipbetweentheparties,effectingotherlegalobligations,thelegalsystem,societymoregenerally)

Conclusion• ReasonableforeseeabilityBUTinsufficientproximitythereforeNOdutyofcare• Donoghue:“foreseeabilityaloneisnotenough;theremustalsobeacloseanddirectrelationship

RVIMPERIALTOBACCO,SCC2011

Facts• ImperialclaimsCanadanegligentlymisrepresentedthehealthattributesoflow-tarcigarettesto

consumersandisliableforcontributionandindemnityonthebasisoftheNegligenceActiftheclassmembersaresuccessful

• AlsoImperialallegedthatCanadamadenegligentmisrepresentationstothetobaccocompanies,andthatCanadaisliableforanylossesthatthetobaccocompaniesincurtotheplaintiffsineithercase

Issues• WhetherthefactsaspleasedbringCanada’srelationshipswithconsumersandthetobaccocompanies

withinasettledcategorythatgivesrisetoadutyofcareo Whetherthereisareasonableprospectthattherelationshipallegedinthepleadingswillgive

risetoliabilityfornegligentmisrepresentationRule

• HavetousethefirststageoftheAnnstesttodecideifthereisprimafaciedutyofcareinnegligentmisrepresentation.Ifnotstruckout,thenliable.

Analysis• McLachlin:factsdonotbringeitherclaimwithinasettledcategoryofnegligentmisrepresentation• Tobaccocompanieshavenotbeenabletoshowanyprecedentwheregovernmenthasbeenheld

liableinnegligentmisrepresentationforstatementsmadetoanindustry.• Inordertoseeifthereisreasonableprospectofsuccess,needtoconsiderwhetherthegeneral

requirementsoftoryliabilityaremet(i.e.Annstest)• Stage1:

4

o TobaccocompaniesarguetherewassufficientlycloseproximitybetweenCanadaandtheconsumers(knightcase)andCanadaandthetobaccocompanies(bothcases)tosupportadutyofcare.CanadacouldalsoreasonablyforeseethatconsumersandtobaccoindustrywouldrelyonCanadasstatementsaboutthehealthadvantagesoflightcigarettes,andthatwasreasonable

o Canadasaystheywereactingexclusivelyinaregulatorycapacitywhenthestatementsweremade.Alsocouldn’treasonablyforeseethatBClegislaturewouldenacttheCRAandcannotbeliableforpotentiallossesundertheAct

§ CourtagreesofthisbeingrejectedbythemajorityoftheCA(legislature)–reasonableforseeablethatitsnegligentmisrepresentationwouldcauseharmtothecompanies

• Complicatingfactoristheroleoflegislation.Twosituations:First,theallegeddutyofcareissaidtoariseexplicitlyorbyimplicationfromthestatutoryscheme.Second,situationwherethedutyofcareisallegedtoarisefrominteractionsbetweentheclaimantandthegovernmentandisnotnegatedbystatute.

• McLachlin:Canadadidn’toweaprimafaciedutytoconsumers,butdidowerPFdutytothetobaccocompanies

• HerculesManagements,specialrelationshipwillbeestablishedwhere”1)thedefendantoughtreasonablytoforeseethattheplaintiffwillrelyonhisorherrepresentation,and2)suchreliancewould,intheparticularcircumstancesofthecase,bereasonable.

Conclusion• ClaimsbetweentobaccocompaniesandCanadashouldnotbestruckoutatthefirststageoftheAnns

test.Theydiscloseaprimafaciedutyofcareinnegligentmisrepresentation• However,factsintheKnightscasedonotshowarelationshipbetweenCanadaandtheconsumers

thatwouldgiverisetoadutyofcareandshouldbestruckatfirststage.

UNFORESEEABLEPLAINTIFF

• Nodutyofcareisowedtotheunforeseeableplaintiffo Ifthereasonablehypotheticalobservercouldhavereasonablyforeseenthelikelihoodthat

anyoneplacedinthepositionoftheplaintiffwouldbeeffectedbyeventsinthewaytheplaintiffwas,theyarenotanunforeseeableplaintiff

PALSGRAFFV.LONGISLANDRAILWAY

Facts• Passengerontraincarryingfireworksispushedbysecurityguard;passengerfell,fireworksexploded;

scalefellonPalsgraffRule

• Beyondtherangeofforeseeabledanger;everyoneowestotheworldatlargeadutyrefrainingfromthoseactswhichthreatenthesafetyofothers

HAY(BOURHILL)V.YOUNG

Facts• Plwasapregnantwoman;shewasgettingoffabusandwasbehinditwhenanaccidenttookplacein

theintersection;claimingthatherstressfromthiseventandseeingdeceasedcausedherbabytobestillborn

5

Analysis/Rule• Wasthedamagetoapersonbehindthebusreasonableforeseeable?àNo

FARRUGIAV.GREATWESTERNRY.

• Itwasforeseeabletothedriverofanoverloadedlorrythatsomeonecouldbeinjuredshouldsomethingfalloff

• Doesnotmatterwhattheplaintiffwasdoingwhentheygotinjured;youoweadutytothosewhomaybeinthevicinityatanygiventime

UNBORNCHILDREN

DUVALV.SEGUIN

• Motherisclearlyaforeseeableplaintiff;butwhataboutherunbornchild?• Procreationis“normalandnecessary”;pregnantwomenmoveaboutonroadsandotherwise;itis

reasonablyforeseeablethatclassofforeseeablehighwayuserswillincludepregnantwomen• Damage(causedbyfaultofdefendant)is“suffered”whenchildbecomeslivingperson• SimilartoHaley(blindusersofthesidewalk)

DOBSONV.DOBSON

• Canamotherbeliableforpre-natalinjuriestoherownchildcausedbyherownnegligence?• Notortdutyofcareowedbymothertounbornfetus(majority)forreasonsofpublicpolicy• “Theprimarypurposeoftortlawistoprovidecompensationtotheinjuredanddeterrencetothe

tortfeasors.Intheordinarycourseofevents,theimpositionoftortliabilityonamotherforprenatalnegligencewouldprovideneithercompensationnotdeterrence.”

FAILURETOACT(AFFIRMATIVEACTION)

• Nonfeasance–Failuretoperformanactthatisprescribebylaw• Misfeasance–Totakeinappropriateactionorgiveintentionallyincorrectadvice

RELATIONSHIPSOFECONOMICBENEFIT

JORDANHOUSELTD.V.MENOW

Facts

• Misaregularcustomeratabarandwellknowntotheownerofthehotel,F;Mtendedtodrinktoexcessandactrecklesslyandtheemployeesknewthis;barredMforatime;thereafter,theemployeeswereinstructednottoservehimunlesshewasaccompaniedbyaresponsibleperson

• Maloneatbar;barsoldMdrinkspastpointofintoxication;Fbecomesawareheisdrunk;Mgestrowdy,ejectedfromthebar;FkneworoughttohaveknownthatMwasunabletotakecareofhimselfafterkickedout

• Itwasdarkandrainy,Mwanderedontohighwayandwashitbyacar

6

Analysis/Rule• Commercialhostshaveadutyofcaretoprotectpatronsfromforeseeableharmasaresultof

knowledgeoftheparticularindividual’scircumstancesandservingtoomuchalcohol,butnoinordinateeconomicburden.

• Creationofforeseeablerisk:o (1)HotelwasawareofM’sintoxicatedconditionwhichitfedbyservingMinviolationofliquor

lawso (2)NoreasonwhyhotelcouldnottakecaretoseethatMwasnotexposedtoinjury(i.e.they

couldhavecalledcab,M’semployer,police,orofferhimaroomorride).• “TherewasaprobableriskofpersonalinjurytoMifhewasturnedoutofthehoteltoproceedon

footonamuchtraveledhighwaypassinginfrontofthehotel.”• Factorsofproximity:

o (1)LiquorControlActàdoesnotestablishdutybutisfactorgoingtoproximityo (2)Hotelininviter/inviteerelationshipwithMasoneofitspatronso (3)HotelawareofM’sintoxicationandFEDitdespitelegalobligations

Conclusion• Resulthereisnottoimposeadutyoneverytavernownertoactasawatchdogforallpatronswho

enterhisplaceofbusinessanddrinktoexcessàagreatdealturnsontheknowledgeofthepatronandhisconditionwheretheissueisliabilityinnegligenceforinjuriessufferedbythepatron

o RulingreaffirmedinCrockerandSundance

STEWARTV.PETTIE

Facts

• Pwasservedtothepointofnoticeableintoxicationatrestaurant• DuringeveningPwassittingwithagroupoffriends,someofwhomweresober• Attheendofthenight,Pproceededtodrivehomeandinjuredtheplaintiffwhileonroute

Analysis/Rule

• Whereacommercialhostoverservesanindividual,thebarhasadutytoensuretheindividualhaspropermeansoftransportationanddoesnotinjureathirdparty.However,ifcircumstancesexistleadingthecommercialhosttobelievetheyhavemetthisduty,theywillNOTbeliable

• Althoughcommercialhostowesadutytoensureanintoxicatedpatrondoesnotinjurehimselforotherstherestaurantdidnotbreachtheirdutyinthiscase.ItwasreasonableforthecommercialhosttopresumethatoneofP’ssoberfriendsatthetablewouldhavedrivenhimhome

CHILDSV.DESORMEAUX

Facts

• AfterNewYear’sparty,DdroveimpairedandcrashedintoPl• ThepartywasBYOB&neitherhostmonitoredtheD’sdrinkingeventhoughknowndrinker• TrialjudgeandCAconcludedsocialhostsdoNOTowedutyofcaretomembersofthepublicwhomay

beinjuredbytheirintoxicatedguest• CaseappealedtoSCC

7

Analysis/Rule

• SocialhostsdoNOTowedutyofcaretothirdpartiesnegligentlyinjuredbyimpairedguests• Commercialhostsdistinguishedfromsocialhosts:

o Commercialhostshavespecialabilitytomonitorconsumption;specialknowledgeaboutintoxication,

o Saleandconsumptionincommercialsettingsstrictlyregulated;imposespecialresponsibilitiesonthosebenefittingfromthesaleofalcohol;notanordinarytransaction.“Partyhosthasneitherinstitutionalisedmethodofmonitoringalcoholconsumption,enforcinglimits,andnoexpectationthatheshoulddoso[thatwouldenablecontrolofanother]”

o Contractualnatureofcommercialhostrelationship;profitmotivepotentiallycreatesincentivetoover-serve;supportsimpositionofduty.

• AnnsTest–Step1(Primafacieduty?):o Injurynotreasonablyforeseeablebyhosts:noevidencehostsknewDwasdrunkwhenheleft;

thefactthathehaddrivendrunkbeforewasnotenougho Proximity:dutyregardingfailuretoactrequiressomethingmorethanforeseeability;requires

thatrelationshipsupportanexusbetweentheparties.• Socialhostsmerelyholdingaparty;insufficientcreationofrisktosupportaffirmativeduty(maybeif

alcoholprovidedtoobviousdrunk,butnotcasehere).Maintainingautonomyofbothguestandhostsupportsnodutyinthissetting-lawwillnotrequirehostesstostrictlymonitorconsumptionofguests.

RELATIONSHIPSOFCONTROLORSUPERVISION

KLAR,TORTLAW,2012

• Thereareseveralrelationshipsofcontrolorsupervisionwhichrequiredominantpartiestotakeaffirmativestepstoeitherpreventinjurytoorassistothersinvulnerablepositions

o Hallmarkoftheserelationships:thosewhoenterintothemdosowillingly,knowingthatsituationsmaydevelopwhichwillrequirethemtoactinordertoassistothers

o Thus,impositionofdutiesofaffirmativeactionisnotinconsistentwiththecommonlaw’sdesirenottointerfereundulywithone’sfreedomofaction

Notes

• Somerelationshipsofcontrolorsupervisionaregovernedbycontract,whileothersarenot.Klarsaysthatevenwithoutacontract,thereisinherenttortobligationtoassist

o Ex:mostobviousrelationshipofcontrolwhichrequiresadutytoassistàparentandchild• Shouldtherebeadutyonamothertoprotectherchildrenfromabusebyherhusband?Ifshedoesn’t

reportittopolice,canshebeasecondaryliableperson?• Landownersoweadutytothoseenteringtheirland• InCalifornia,theElderAbuseActprovidesfordamagestobeawardedagainstanyonewhoabusesthe

elderly,eitherphysicallyorfinancially.o Theabusemustbeprovedby“clearandconvincingevidence”whichrequiresrecklessnessor

intent

8

NON-CLOSEDCATEGORIESOFAFFIRMATIVEDUTIES

• “Apositivedutyofcaremayexistifforeseeabilityofharmispresentandifotheraspectsoftherelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendantestablishaspeciallinkorproximity.Threesuchsituationshavebeenidentifiedbythecourts.Theyfunctionnotasstrictlegalcategories,butrathertoelucidatefactorsthatcanleadtopositivedutiestoact.Thesefactors,orfeaturesoftherelationship,bringpartieswhowouldotherwisebelegalstrangersintoproximityandimposepositivedutiesondefendantsthatwouldnototherwiseexist.”

CATEGORIESOFAFFIRMATIVEDUTIES

1. Whereadefendantintentionallyattractsandinvitesthirdpartiestoaninherentandobviousriskthatheorshehascreatedorcontrols.

o Ex.Crockerv.SundanceNorthwestResortsLtd§ Thesecasesturnonthedefendant’scausalrelationshiptotheoriginoftheriskofinjury

facedbytheplaintifforonstepstakentoinviteotherstosubjectthemselvestoariskunderthedefendant’scontrol.

§ Ifthedefendantcreatesariskysituationandinvitesothersintoit,failuretoactthereafterdoesnotimmunizethedefendantfromtheconsequencesofitsacts.

2. Whereapositivedutyofcarehasbeenheldtoexistconcernspaternalisticrelationshipsofsupervision

andcontrol,suchasthoseofparent-childorteacher-student.o Ex.Dziwenkav.TheQueeninrightofAlberta

§ Thedutyinthesecasesrestsonthespecialvulnerabilityoftheplaintiffsandtheformalpositionofpowerofthedefendants

§ Thelawrecognizesthattheautonomyofsomepersonsmaybepermissiblyviolatedorrestricted,but,inturn,requiresthatthosewithpowerexerciseitinlightofspecialduties

3. Concernsdefendantswhoeitherexerciseapublicfunctionorengageinacommercialenterprisethat

includesimpliedresponsibilitiestothepublicatlarge.o Ex.Dunnv.DominionAtlanticRailwayCo;JordanHouseLtd.v.Menow;Doev.Metropolitan

Toronto(Municipality)CommissionersofPolice(1998)§ Inthesecases,thedefendantsofferaservicetothegeneralpublicthatincludes

attendantresponsibilitiestoactwithspecialcaretoreducerisk§ Whereadefendantassumesapublicrole,orbenefitsfromofferingaservicetothe

publicatlarge,specialdutiesarise.§ Thedutyofacommercialhostwhoservesalcoholtogueststoacttoprevent

foreseeableharmtothird-partyusersofthehighwayfallsintothiscategory:Stewartv.Pettie

COMMONTHEMES

• Creationorcontrolofrisk:o Defendant’smaterialimplicationincreationofriskorcontrolofarisktowhichothershave

beeninvited.• Concernfortheautonomyofthepersonsaffectedbythepositiveactionproposed:

o Lawdoesnotimposeadutytoeliminaterisk.

9

o Itacceptspeoplehavetherighttoengageinriskyactivities.o Itpermitsthirdpartieswitnessingrisktodecidenottobecomerescuersorotherwise

intervene.o Itisonlywhenthesethirdpartieshaveaspecialrelationshiptothepersonindangerora

materialroleinthecreationormanagementoftheriskthatthelawmayimpingeonautonomy.

• Reasonablereliance:o Unitesexamplesinallthreecategories.o Apersonwhocreatesorinvitesothersintoadangeroussituation,likethehigh-risksports

operator,mayreasonablyexpectthatthosetakinguptheinvitationwillrelyontheoperatortoensurethattheriskisareasonableoneortotakeappropriaterescueactioniftheriskmaterializes.

§ Ex.Ateacherwillunderstandthatthechildorthechild’sparentsrelyontheteachertoavoidandminimizerisk.

§ Ex.Reasonableexpectationbypublicthatapersonprovidingpublicservices,oftenunderlicense,willtakereasonableprecautionstoreducetheriskoftheactivity,notmerelytoimmediateclients,buttothegeneralpublic

CREATIONOFDANGEROUSSITUATIONS

OKEVWEIDETRANSPORT,1963MANITOBACA

Facts • Thedefendantdriver,withoutnegligence,knockeddownatrafficsignlocatedinthemiddleofagravel

stripdividingahighway;removeddebrisexceptmetalpostbecauseitwasembeddedtoosecurely• Hedecidedtocallthepolice,butagarageattendanttoldhimnotto• Adriverpassedoverthemetalpost,inthelanethatwasillegal,andthepostwentthroughthefloor

boardsandkilledhim• Attrial,defendantandemployerwereheldliableforthedeathduetonegligenceinfailingtonotify

police.MajorityofCourtofAppealdismissedtheactionongroundsoflackofforesightIssues

• IsthetruckdriverliableforOke’sdeath?• Wastherenegligenceinthecreationofthedangeroussituation?

Ratio/Analysis• Evenifyouareunderalegaldutytotakeresponsibilityforyournegligentactions,afailuretoact

(nonfeasance)topreventfutureharmisnotnegligentifthetypeofharmthatoccurredwasnotforeseeable

• Freedman(dissenting)–arguesthattheaccidentsatisfiedtherequirementofforeseeability.Hedisagreedwithmajorityandstatesthathisuniqueroleincausingthedamageputshiminaspecialclassofhisown.Itisnotlogicaltocomparehimtoamerepassingmotorist

Conclusion• Majoritydismissedtheactionàlackofforesight

ZIEMERVWHEELER2014BCSC2009

Facts• DefendantWheeler(1)non-negligentlystrikesamooseonthehighway,leavescarcassonroad

10

• 9minuteslater,Walter(2)(alsonon-negligently)strikesthemooseandlosescontrolofhispickuptruck,crossingoverintotheoncominglane

• TheplaintiffZiemer(3)non-negligentlycollidesheadonwithWalter’svehicleIssue

• DoesWheeleroweadutyofcaretoZiemer(or,otherusersoftheroad)?Rule/Analysis:

• 1.Novelduty?(precedent)o Broadlyspeaking,thereisprecedentfortheideaforamotoristthatnon-negligentlyhasaduty

insomecircumstancestoamelioratetherisk(OkevWeideTransport)• 2.Foreseeability?

o Theplaintiffhastoshowthat‘butfor’theactionsofthedefendant,theaccidentwouldn’thaveoccurred

§ Courtheld:ifDhadtakenreasonablestepstowarnothermotoristsofthehazard,thentheaccidentwouldnothavehappened,orattheveryleast,wouldnothaveresultedinsuchsignificantinjuries

Conclusion• Negligentforfailingtowarnothermotorists;nothittingthemoose• Adriverwhocollideswithwildlifemusttakereasonablestepstowarnotherusersofthehighway

aboutthewildlife• Whatconstitutesreasonableactionwillvarydependingonthecase• Thetimeavailabletothedriverisanimportantfactorinassessingreasonableness

RELIANCERELATIONSHIPSANDUNDERTAKINGS

ZELENKOVGIMBELBROS,1935NEWYORKSC

Facts

• Plaintiff’sintestatetookillindefendant’sstore• Defendanttriedtorendermedicalaid,butitdidn’twork• Plaintiffarguedthatifdefendanthadlefttheintestatealone,someonewouldhavecalledthe

ambulanceRatio/Analysis

• Thegeneralrule:Ifadefendantowesaplaintiffnoduty,thenrefusaltoactisnotnegligence• However,apersonmayassumeadutybymeddlinginmatterwithwhichlegalisticallyithadno

concernConclusion

• Decisioninfavourofplaintiff

STATUTORYDUTIES

O’ROURKEVSCHACHT,1972ONTCA

Facts• Awelllitbarriermarkingadetouraroundahighwayconstructionwasknockedoverbyacaratnight

ànotvisibletoothers• OPPinvestigatedtheaccident,butfailedtowarntrafficaboutthedangerontheroad

11

• Plaintiffwasinjuredwhenhedroveintotheunmarkedexcavation• ThepoliceactrequiredOPP,interalia“shallmaintainatrafficpatrol…”,andtheHTAempoweredPO’s

todirecttrafficinorder“toensureorderlymovement”and“preventinjuryordamagetopersonsorproperty

Rule/Analysis• Astatutorydutybyitselfdoesnotcreatecommonlawduty,butitcanbeusedtocreateaclduty• Schroeder:

o Itisimpossibleandinadvisabletoattempttoframeadefinitionwhichwillsetdefinitelimitstothepowersanddutiesofpoliceofficersappointedtocarryoutthepowersofthestateinrelationtoindividualswhocomewithinitsjurisdictionandprotection

o RespondentPO’swereunderastatutorydutytomaintainatrafficpatrolofthehighwayinquestion

§ Patrolmeanstopolicepassingalonghighwaysorstreetsintheperformanceoftheirdutiesàtoensurethattrafficlawswillbeobeyed,toinvestigateroadaccidents,andtoassistinjuredpersons

o Officerswereunderapositivedutybyvirtueoftheirofficetotakeappropriatemeasuresinthefaceofahazardousconditionsuchastheyencounteredheretoapproachingtrafficofitspresence

o Normally,thiswouldappeartobenonfeasance,however,inthecaseofpublicservantssubjectnottoameresocialobligation,buttoalegalobligation,itwasnonfeasanceamountingtomisfeasance

§ Dutieslaiduponthemarefromrelevantstatuesandcommonlaw§ It’slikeowingapositiveduty

Conclusion• Courtallowedtheplaintifftorecover50%ofhisdamagesagainstthepoliceadministration

STANDARDOFCARE:BREACHOFDUTY

UNREASONABLERISK

• Thestandardofcarerequiredisnotthatofperfectionàneedtobereasonable• Whatdoesitmeantobereasonable?ànotcreate“unreasonablerisk”

BOLTONV.STONE

Facts• Batterhitacricketballoutofthefieldandithitsomeoneonanadjacenthighway• Ballhadonlybeenhitoverthefence6timesin30years

Rule• Thetesttobeappliediswhethertheriskofdamagetoapersonwassosmallthatareasonableperson

wouldnothavetakenstepstoavoidit• Inweighingrisks,thereasonablepersonshouldconsiderthelikelihoodofapersonbeinginjuredand

theseriousnessofdamageshouldapersonbeinjuredAnalysis

• Anythingwhichisnotafantasticpossibilityisreasonablyforeseeableàoncetheballhasbeenhitoutsideoftheparkitisforeseeableitwillhappenagain

• Reasonablemancannotcreateriskthatissubstantialàneedanelementoflikelihood

12

PARISVSTEPNEYCOUNTYCOUNCIL

Facts• Oneeyedplaintiff;goodeyeisdamagedinworkplace;suesemployerfornotprovidinggoggles(usual

practice)Ratio

• Magnitudeofharm+likelihoodofrisk• “Ifprecautionsaretakenwhichwouldhavebeenreasonableinthecaseofpersonspossessedofthe

usualfacultiesofsightandhearing,thiswillbesufficienttomeetthestandardofcareowedtoapersonwhoisnotpossessedofthosefaculties,unlessthedefendantwasawareoftheplaintiff’sinfirmity”

• PotentialgravityofharmshouldinfluenceRP’sdecisiontoguardagainstitAnalysis

• Thoughcustom/normdoesnotprovideworkerswithgoggles,Paris’soneeyemeansthereisahigherdutyofcareowedtohim

o Why?Magnitudeofharmishigherforhim;shouldhiseyebestruck,hewouldhavezerovisibilityVSaregularworkwhowouldstillhaveoneeyetoseeoutof

Conclusion• DOCowedtoone-eyedemployee

WATTVHERTFORDSHIRECOUNTYCOUNCIL

Facts• JackwasnotproperlysecuredatbackoffiretruckandinjuredWatt

Ratio• Theremustbeabalanceintheriskagainsttheendtobeachieved• Incasesofemergency(e.g.fire),riskissometimesjustifiableifserioussocialobjectives(tosavelife&

limb)

REASONABLEPERSON

• Thereasonablepersondoesnotcreateunreasonablerisk• Evaluatethedefendant’sdecisionmakingbasedonanobjectivestandardàwhatwouldtheobjective

reasonablepersondo?

VAUGHANV.MENLOVE

Facts• Dbuiltahayrickneartheboundaryofhislandandhisneighbour’sland• PlwarnedDthattherewasaseriouschancethatthehayrickwouldcatchfireandspreadtohis

propertyàDignoredthis• Thehayrickcaughtfireandspreadtotheplaintiff’scottages,whichwerecompletelydestroyed

Rule• “TheORPshouldnotjustbeconsideredtobearandompersonoffthestreet;itshouldbeconsidered

asareasonablepersonwiththesameknowledge,inthesamesituation”

BLYTHV.BIRMINGHAMWATERWORKS

Facts• Dinstalledafire-plugmadeaccordingtothebestknowndesign;severefrostledtotheplugbeing

damagedandmajorfloodingoccurredcausingdamagetothePl’sproperty

13

Analysis/Rule• Reasonablemanwouldactinaccordancetotheaveragetemperatureinthelastfewyearswhichis

whattheDdid;frostthatyearwasnottypicalforthatareaàDcouldnothaveknownthiswouldhappen

• Thereisnoneedtobeperfect;onemustsimplyactreasonably

PRASADV.FERGUSON <whendoesrphaveanobligationtomakeinquiries?>

Facts• Within48hoursorarrivinginCanadafromEngland,plaintiffwasthepassengerinacarandwasnot

wearingaseatbelt;otherdriverwasoverthespeedlimitIssue

• Isplaintiffcontributorynegligentforherinjuries?• Washerfailuretowearaseatbeltafailuretomeetthestandardofcarerequiredofareasonable

personinthissituation?Rule/Analysis

• Contextmatters:ifyoudon’tknowanybetter,youdon’thavetomakeanyinquiries(e.g.seekingexpertadvice)

• Noevidenceplaintiffknewthepossibleseverityofinjuriesresulting• Look to see whether a reasonable person in England had to wear a seatbelt: in 1985, it was not

mandatorytowearseatbeltsinEngland• Timeshewasinthecountryisrelevanttothecase

CAMINERVNORTHERN&LONDONINVT.TRUST<whendoesrpconsultanexpert>

Rule/Analysis• Dutyofthelandownertoinspecttheirtreestoensuresafetybutiftherearenoexternalindicationsof

aproblem,thereisnorequirementtoconsultanexperto Ask-Wouldareasonableownerhavethoughtitnecessarytocallinanexpertabouthistree?

No.Again,nothingaboutthetreemadeitseemlikesuchactionwasrequired.• CourtfoundDfulfilledhisextentofduty,unlesstheappellantcouldprovetherewassomething

particularaboutthetreewhichwouldhavesuggestedactionrequired

QUINNV.SCOTT <whendoesrpconsultanexpert>

Rule/Analysis• SameasaboveexceptDretainedaprofessionalforestryadvisor• Hadthethinningbranchesbeenreportedtohim,hewouldhavedetectedtherot(althoughitwould

nothavebeenapparenttotheordinaryperson)• Giventhecircumstancesandthelevelofexpertisereadilyavailabletothetreeowner,theyareliable

innegligence

CONEV.WELOCK <whendoesrpconsultanexpert>

Facts• Guestatahuntinglodgetriedtostartafireinafireplacewithasubstancehewronglybelievedtobe

furnaceoil;itwasgasolineandthecabinburneddown

14

Issue• Washisbehaviour“reasonable”underthecircumstances?Didhemeetthestandardofcareofa

reasonablepersoninthesamecircumstances?o Ifno,hebreachedthestandardofcareo Ifyes,thereisnobreachandnoliability

Rule/Analysis• Asperthefacts,theDtooktheprecautionarystepsneededtoensurethatthestandardofa

reasonablepersonwasmet

CARROLLV.CHICKENPALACE <SOC&physicaldisability>

Rule• Whenapersonhasadisability,theonusisonthatpersontotakespecialprecautionsin“unusual”

dangersAnalysis

• Toablindperson,thepremisewasfullofunusualdangers;nothingunusual/dangeroustoafullsightedperson

Conclusion• Restaurantwasnotnegligent;nobreachofdutyowedbydefendant

HALEYV.LONDONELECTRICITYBOARD <SOC&physicaldisability>

Facts• Everydayblindplaintifftooksameroutetowork;workmenbeganexcavatingatrenchonsidewalk

unknowntoplaintiff;failedtoproperlyplaceobstacles;plaintifftrippedandstruckheadbecomingdeaf;obstaclescouldonlybeseenbysightedpeople

Rule• Publicincludesblindpersons,thereforetheyareRFandmustbetakenintoaccount

Analysis• DistinguishedfromChickenPalace–morelikelyablindpersonwillusethesidewalk• Personwalkedsamewayeveryday;noknownrisks• Blindpersondoesnotneedtouseheighteneddegreeofcareorskill

Conclusion• RFthatablindpersonwoulduseapublicwalkway;LEBbreachedduty• “…ameasureofcareappropriatetotheinabilityordisabilityofthosewhoareimmatureorfeeblein

mindorbodyisduefromotherswhoknowof,oroughttoanticipate,thepresenceofsuchpersonswithinthescopeandhazardoftheirownoperation.”

Alwayscomesdownto:WhatwouldaRPdointhissituation?Howwouldtheyassesstherisk?

15

CUSTOM

• thewaythingshavetraditionallybeendonebyothersinthecommunity/area

• TheRP,toacertainextent,canrelyonwhatthecustomisandseethatthisisinfactareasonablewaytodothings.

o ProvidesanothermeasureofreasonablenesswhendeterminingtheappropriatecourseofactionBUTisnotdeterminativeofareasonableaction

WALDICKV.MALCOLM

Facts• WslippedandfellontheicyparkingareaoftheM’srentedfarmhouse;areahadn’tbeensaltedor

sanded(somepeoplehaddoneso);Marguedthatitwasthecustomintheareanottosandorsalttheparkingarea

Analysis/Rule• Customisnotdeterminative;itcanbeunreasonableitself(DrewryvDowns);courtsdecidewhatis

reasonable• Customisnotconclusiveevidenceofwhatisorisnotreasonableinaparticularsetofcircumstances,

butdoesprovideausefulguidelineforwhatwillbereasonable• Justascompliancewithcustomisnotconclusiveofreasonablecare,deviationfromcustomisnot

conclusiveofnegligence(BrownvRollsRoyce)• Customdoesnotwaivethenormalstandardofcarerequiredbyareasonableperson

STATUTORYSTANDARDS

• Abreachofastatutorystandardcanbeseenasevidenceofabreachofthestandardofcare,butabreachofthestatutorystandardisnotitselfabreachofthestandardofcare

o Compliancewithastatutorystandarddoesnotmeanthestandardofcarehasbeenmet

R.V.SASKATCHEWANWHEATPOOL

Facts• Beetleinfestationatagrainelevatorandgrainisinfected;partiescannotlocatesourceofinfestation;

deliveryofinfestedgrain=statutorybreach;seekingdamagesfor“breachofstatute”Rule

• TEST:Touseabreachofstatuteasevidenceofnegligence,theincidentinquestionmustbeofthetypethatthestatutewasmeanttopreventandconnectedtothereasonsthestatutewasenacted

Analysis• Nosuchtortas“breachofstatute”;breachofstatutestandard(becausetheyabidedotherwise)can

beusedasEVIDENCEofabreachofstandardofcare,butitisnotdeterminativeofabreachConclusion

• Proofofstatutorybreach,causativeofdamages,maybeevidenceofnegligence(likecustom)• Statutoryformulationofthedutymayaffordaspecificandusefulstandardofreasonableconduct

16

GORRISV.SCOTT

Facts• P,senthissheeponScott’sSheep.DiseaseActsaidtotiethesheepdown,butwasnotfollowed.

Sheepwaslost.Pissuing.Analysis

• StatutewasaboutprotectingsheepfromdiseaseNOTaboutpreventingloss.Rule

• Substanceofthestatutemustrelatetothebreachofthestandardofcare-otherwiseirrelevant• Oneisnotliableforaviolationofastatuteifthedamagecomplainedofisnotthepurposeofthe

statute

RYANV.VICTORIACITY

Facts• Rwasinjuredwhenhedroveoverrailwaytracksinthecity;trackswerecompliantw/allnecessary

statutoryrequirements;doesmeetingthestatutoryrequirementmeanthestandardofcarehasbeenmet?

Analysis/Rule• Compliancewithastatutorystandardofcaredoesnotabrogateorsupersedetheobligationtocomply

withthecommonlawstandardofcare• Inappropriatecircumstancescompliancewithstatutorystandardsmayentirelysatisfythestandardof

careandthusabsolveadefendantofliabilityinnegligence• Likelythatcompliancewithastatute=reasonablestandardofcarewherethestatuteauthorizes

certainactivitiesandstrictlydefinesmannerofperformanceo Whereastatutorystandardprovidesbroadandgeneralguidelines,merecomplianceofthe

lawisunlikelytoexhaustthestandardofcare.o Ontheflipside,ifthestatutestrictlydefinesactions,complianceislikelytoshowreasonable

care.• Merecomplianceisunlikelytoexhaustthestandardofcarewhereastatuteisgeneralandpermits

discretioninperformance

EXCEPTIONSTOTHERPSTANDARD

THEYOUNG <lowerSOC>

• Thereasonablepersonstandardofcareisrelaxedfortheyoung• Generalrule:nochildundertheageof7canbeliablefornegligenceàdonotunderstandtheir

actionswillhaveconsequencesandtheyneedtotakeresponsibilityfortheiractions• Two-PartTest:

o Isthisparticularchildcapableofnegligenceliability?(subjectivequestion)o Ifyes,wouldthereasonablechildofsimilarage,experienceandintelligenceunderstandand

appreciatethedangerofrisk?(McEllistrumv.Etches)§ Wouldareasonablechildtakethesamerisk?

• Ifyoungpeopleareengagedinadultactivities,theyareheldtotheadultstandardofcare

17

HEISLERV.MOKE <articulationoftherule>

Facts• Infantdrivingtractor,injuredsomeoneelse

Rule• Childrenarenotheldtothereasonablepersonstandardofanadult• Testforfindingnegligenceforchildren:

1. Considertheage,intelligence,experienceoftheparticularchild.(subjectivetest)2. Askwhatareasonablechild(ofthatage)couldbeexpectedtodoandforeseeunderthese

particularcircumstances.(objectivetest)

MCEARLENV.SAREL <youngengagedinadultactivity>

Rule• “Whenachildengagesinwhatmaybeclassifiedasanadultactivity’[inthiscaseridingtrailbikes]he

orshewillnotbeaccordedspecialtreatmentandnoallowancewillbemadeforhisorherimmaturity.Inthiscircumstancestheminorwillbeheldtothesamestandardofcareasanadultengagedinthesameactivity”

NESPOLONV.ALFORD <youngengagedinadultactivity>

Facts• 16yearolds(JandK;Ds)drivinginebriated14-year-oldhome;dropshimoffnearby(at14yearold’s

request);14yearoldwandersintoroad;accidentensues,causingdeathto14yearold,nervousshocktothirdparty(driverwhostruckhim;P)

Issue/Holding• WasAlfordnegligentofa16yrold?NO• Wasthe“droppingoff”ofSnideranadultactivity?NO

Ratio• Childrenwillonlybeheldliableonanadultstandard,ifengagedinadultactivity

Analysis• NoreasonforAlfordtosuspectthatSniderwasatrisk,orfallontheroadcausingriskofnervousshock

toastranger.Droppinghimoffatthesideoftheroadisnotanadultactivity

MENTALANDPHYSICALDISABILITY <lowerSOC>

• PersonssufferingfromadisabilityneednotcomplywiththeRPstandard(seeFialaTest)

FIALAV.CECHMANEK

Facts• Whileonarun,Robhadamanicepisode(diagnosedlaterasbipolardisorder);jumpedonC’svehicle;

wentthroughthesunroofandbeganchokingher;CinvoluntarilysteppedonthegaspedalandhitF’scar

• WhatisthestandardofcarethatshouldbeappliedtoRob’sbehaviour?

18

Rule/Analysis• TEST:InordertoberelievedoftortliabilitywhenaDisafflictedsuddenlyandwithoutwarningwitha

mentalillness,thatDmustshoweitherofthefollowingonBALANCEOFPROBABILITIES:

1. Asaresultoftheirmentalillness,theDhadnocapacitytounderstandorappreciatetheDOCowedattherelevanttime;OR

2. Asaresultofmentalillness,theDwasunabletodischargetheirDOCastheyhadnomeaningfulcontrolovertheiractionsatthetimetherelevantconductfellbelowtheobjectiveSOC

Conclusion• ToholdsomeonetoaSOCthattheycannotrealisticallymeetwouldcreateasituationof‘strict

liability’orliabilitywithoutfault(remember:intort,faultisthebreach!)• Mustbeconsistencywithotherrulesoftort;standardshavebeenrelaxedfortheyoungbecauseit

wouldbeunreasonabletoexpectthemtobeheldtoit.Samerulesapplyhere.Itwouldbeunreasonabletoexpectapersonwithamental/physicaldisabilitytobeheldtothesameSOCofaRP.

PROFESSIONALNEGLIGENCE <higherSOC>

• Standardofcareforadoctor/surgeon/professionalo Itisexpectedofsuchaprofessionalmanthatheshouldshowafair,reasonableandcompetent

degreeofskill(reasonabledoctorinthatsituation,giventhatknowledge)(SalmondonTorts)§ Asurgeonisexpectedtoapplythedegreeofcarewhichanormallyskilledmemberof

hisprofessionmaybereasonablyexpectedtoexercise”(Fleming,LawofTorts)• Theparamountneedforcompensatingaccidentvictims,however,clearlyoutweighsallcompeting

considerations,&thebeginneris,therefore,heldtothestandardofthosewhoarereasonablyskilledorproficientinthatoccupationorcalling…”(Fleming)

CHALLANDV.BELL

Facts• Plfellandbrokehisarminafarm;Dconcludedtherewasnocontaminationandputthearminacast;

swellingoccurredandDdidwhathethoughtwasbestforthesituation;armhadtobeamputatedduetoinfection

Analysis/Rule:• Asurgeonisexpectedtoapplythedegreeofcarewhichanormallyskilledmemberofhisprofession

maybereasonablyexpectedtoexercise• WILSONTEST:

o 1.Physicianundertakesthatthathepossessestheskill,knowledgeandjudgmentoftheaverage

o 2.Injudgingthataverage,regardmustbehadtothespecialgrouptowhichhebelongs;fromageneralpractitionerataruralpointadifferentstandardisexactedfromaspecialistatanurbanpoint

o 3.Ifthedecisionwasaresultofexercisingthataveragestandard,thereisnoliabilityforanerrorinjudgment

19

TERNEUZENV.KORN

Facts• PlcontractedHIVafterreceivingartificialinseminationtreatment;customtonotscreendonorsfor

HIV/STIs/etc.Rule

• Specialistsareheldtoahigherstandardofcarethanaregulardoctor• Significanceofcustominthiscontext:“asageneralrule,whereaprocedureinvolvesdifficultor

uncertainquestionsofmedicaltreatmentorcomplex,scientificorhighlytechnicalmattersthatarebeyondtheordinaryexperienceandunderstandingofajudgeorjury,itwillnotbeopentofindastandardmedicalpracticenegligent.

o Maybeanexceptiontothegeneralruleifastandardpracticefailstoadoptobviousandreasonableprecautionswhicharereadilyapparenttotheordinaryfinderoffact[custom,heremayalsobe“unreasonable”]

o Mattersfallingwithintheordinarycommonsenseofjuriescanbejudgedtobenegligent

VANCOUVERGENERALHOSPITALV.FRASER

Rule• Standardofcareforaninternisthatofareasonablycompetentinternandnotofaphysician

• Thisincludesanappreciationofhisownknowledgelimitsandneedtoconsult,seekassistance,asnecessary

BROWNV.UOFA

Rule� 1.SOCofpractitioneristhatof“normal,prudentpractitioner� 2.SpecialistheldtoahigherSOCthanGPs(“ifheholdshimselfoutasaspecialistahigherdegreeof

skillisrequired”)� 3.Sameprincipleappliestodiagnosis,treatment,andmedicalreports� 4.Standardappliedisthatoftimetheeventstookplace

REIBLV.HUGHES <dutyofdisclosure>

Facts• Plaskedaboutpossibilityofastroke;DtoldhimthatchanceofparalysisifPldidnotundergothe

surgerywerehigh;Dsaidnothingofthechanceofstroke/paralysisduringorshortlyafterthesurgery• Plhadastrokeafterthesurgeryandwasparalyzed;testifiedthatifhehadknownoftheriskof

paralysisafterthesurgeryhewouldnothaveundergonetheprocedureRule/Analysis

• Dutytodisclosematerialrisks!Doctor’smustdiscloseallrelevantriskstothepatientbeforesurgery• OnaBoP,havingbeeninformedofrisks,wouldaRPintheP’spositionhaveoptedagainst

surgery/treatment?(BvS:likelinessofriskvgravityofharm)o CausationisonlyestablishedwhenthereasonablepersoninthePl’spositionwouldhave

foregonetheprocedureifhe/shehadbeenproperlyinformed

20

Conclusion• Failuretodiscloseadequatelycausedplaintiff’slossbecauseitcausedhimtomakeachoice,tohis

owndetriment,thatotherwisehewouldnothavemadeifhehadbeenproperlyinformed(negligentnon-disclosureofrisks)

HOPP.VLEPP

Rule• Adoctorshouldansweranyspecificquestionaskedtohimastotherisksinvolvedintheprocedure

andshould,withoutbeingquestioneddisclose:o Natureofproposedprocedureo Gravityofharmo Allmaterial/special/unusualrisksassociatedwiththeprocedure

• Evenifacertainriskisamerepossibilitywhichordinarilyneednotbedisclosed,ifitsoccurrencecarriedseriousconsequencesitshouldberegardedasamaterialriskrequiringdisclosure

WHITEV.TURNER <materialriskdefined>

• Materialrisksaresignificantrisksthatposearealthreattothepatient’slife,healthorcomfort.• Inconsideringwhetherariskismaterial,onemustbalancetheseverityofthepotentialresultandthe

likelihoodofitsoccurring(evenisthereisonlyasmallchanceofseriousinjuryordeath)• Ifthereissignificantchanceofslightinjury,thistoomaybematerial

o Unusualorspecialrisksmustalsobedisclosed

BRENNERV.GREGORY <lawyer’sSOC>

Rule

• Obligationofasolicitoro Toactinaccordancewiththegeneralandapprovedpracticefollowedbysolicitorsunlesssuch

practiceisinconsistentwithprudentprecautionsagainstaknownrisk,aswhereheorshefailstocarryoutparticularinstruction

§ AKA:liableiffoundthattheirerror/ignorancewassuchthatanordinarilycompetentlawyerwouldnothavemadeorshownit

• Nolawyerwouldhavethoughttohavetogothroughlandsurveytofindpropertyborders

DAMAGE

• Evenifthere’sadutyofcare,andthestandardofcarerequiredhasbeenbreached–therecanbenoliabilityinnegligenceunlesssomedamagehasbeensufferedbytheplaintiffANDitisshownthatthedamageflowedFROMthebreach(causation)

CAUSATION

• ThereisnoliabilityinnegligenceunlesstheactcausedthePl’sdamage(damagemustflowfromthebreach)

21

• Cause-in-fact:mustbesomelinkorconnectionbetweenthewrongfulactandthelossbeingcomplainedof.

• “ButFor”Test:determinescausationàbutfortheactoftheD,thePlwouldnothavesufferedanydamages

o Ifthelosswouldnothaveoccurredbutfortheconductofthedefendant,itisacauseoftheloss

§ IOW:Ifthedamagewouldhaveoccurredwithorwithouttheactionsofthedefendant,theconductisnotacauseofthedamage

o Basedonthebalanceofprobabilities

“BUTFOR”TEST

KAUFFMANV.TTC

Facts• Plwasonanescalatoratasubwaystationwhentwokidsinfrontofherfellbackwards;fellontopof

thePlandshewasinjured• Plargues,butfortheinadequatehandrailsinstalledbyTTCherdamagewouldn’thaveoccurred

Analysis/Rule• ButforTestàbutfortheactoftheD,thePlwouldnothavesufferedanydamages• Noevidenceofmanoryouthsattemptingtograsphandrailbeforefalling;noevidenceofplaintiff

doingso;noevidencehandrailacontributingfactortoincident• Nocausationàcannotsay“butfor”thehandraildesignincidentwouldnothaveoccurred

THEBASICPRINCIPLES

ATHEYVLEONATI[1996]SCC <exceptiontobf>

Facts• Atheysufferedbackinjuriesintwosuccessivecaraccidents,andsoonafterexperiencedadisc

herniationduringastretchingexercise.Amixtureoftheinjuriesfromthetwoaccidentsandapreexistingconditioncausedthis.

Issue• Shouldthelossbeapportionedbetweentortiousandnon-tortiouscauseswherebothwerenecessary

tocreatetheinjury?Rule/Analysis

• Insomecases,BFtestmaybefactuallyunworkable,socausationmayalsoberecognisedincaseswherethebreach“materiallycontributed”tothedamage(acontributingfactorismaterialifitfallsoutofthedeminimisrange)

• CausationcanbeestablishedwhereD’sneg“materiallycontributed”totheinjuryo NotnecessarytoestablishthatD’snegwasthesolecauseofinjury(contributingcausesare

acceptable)• Lawdoesnotexcuseadefendantfromliabilitymerelybecauseothercausalfactorsforwhichhe’snot

responsibleforalsohelpedproducetheharm• Ifthedefendant’sconductisfoundtobeacauseoftheinjury,thepresenceofothernon-tortious

contributingcausesdoesnotreducethedefendant’sliability• Anindependentinterveningactwillbreakthechainofcausation.IIAisafreshcauseofdamage,andit

isunjusttoshiftlosscausedbytheIIAtotheD.

22

• “ThinSkull”Doctrine:whenpre-existingconditionswouldnothavecausedtheinjurybutforthe

defendant’sactions;DtakesthePastheyfindthem;willbeliablefortheplaintiff’slosses• “CrumblingSkull”Doctrine:makesthetortfeasorliablefortheplaintiff’sinjurieseveniftheinjuriesare

unexpectedlysevereowingtoapre-existingcondition(wouldhavesufferedthatmuchinthefutureanyways,whichdistinguishesitfromthinskullrule)

REVERSEONUSANDINFERENCE

INFERRINGCAUSATION

• Relaxedrequirementofproofofcausationo McGheev.NationalCoalBoard(UK)

§ OnusofproofoflackofcausationshiftstoDifPlcanshowthatdefendantmateriallyincreasedriskofinjury,andinjuryoccurred“withinthatrisk”(Snellv.Farrell)

o McGheeprinciple:iftheplaintiffcanprovethatthedefendantmateriallyincreasedtheriskofinjurytotheplaintiff,thenthedefendantisliable

• Noreverseonus;notnecessarytofairlycompensateplaintiffswhere“substantial”connectiontolossexists;rather,“commonsense”inferenceofcausation

SNELLVFARRELL

Facts• Plhadeyesurgery;Dinjectedanaestheticandsawbleedingbutcontinuedanyways;subsequent

damageoccurredtotheeye(blindness)àdiditflowfromD’sbehaviouroranothercause?• TrialjudgeappliedreverseonusprinciplefromMcGhee;confirmedbyCA

Analysis/Rule• SCCrejectedthereverseonusprinciple;onusisonthePltoprovedamages• Withinthisprinciplelaytwounderlyingfactors:

o 1.Onusisonpartywhoassertstheproposition,usuallytheplaintiff;ando 2.Wherethesubjectmatteroftheallegationliesparticularlywithintheknowledgeofone

party,thatpartymayberequiredtoproveit.§ Especiallyinmalpracticecases,thefactsliewithintheknowledgeofthedefendant,

whohasmoreknowledgeintheareainwhichtheypractice.• Courtfoundthat“thelegalandultimateburdenremainswiththeplaintiff,asinthetraditional

approach,butintheabsenceofevidencetothecontraryadducedbythedefendant,aninferenceofcausationmaybedrawn,althoughpositiveorscientificproofofcausationhasnotbeenadduced.”Ifsomeevidenceisadducedbythedefendant,thetrialjudgemustweighalloftheevidencebeforehim.

MATERIALINCREASEINRISK(INSTEADOF“BUTFOR”TEST)

MaterialContributionToRiskTest(Resurfice):

• ItmustbeimpossiblefortheplaintifftoprovethattheD’snegligencecausedthePl’sinjuryusingthe“butfor”test

o TheimpossibilitymustbeduetofactorsoutsideofthePl’scontrol• ItmustbeclearthattheDbreachedadutyofcareowedtothePl,therebyexposingthePltoan

unreasonableriskofinjury,andthePlmusthavesufferedthatformofinjuryo ThePl’sinjurymustfallwithintheambitoftheriskcreatedbytheD’sbreach

23

CLEMENTSVCLEMENTS

Facts• Mr.CandMrs.Cridingamotorcycle;bikeisoverweightandthetirepuncturesduetoanail;Mr.Clost

controlandMrs.Cwasthrownoffthebike;sufferedseverebraindamage• Courtmustdeterminewhichtesttouseà“butfor”testormaterialcontributiontorisktest

Analysis/Rule• Defaulttesttouseifthe“butfor”test;onlyusematerialcontributionwhenitisimpossibleto

determinewhichoneofmultipleactsdonebymultiplepeoplecausedtheinjury(radicalstepisrarelytaken)

• Youcanstrayawayfromthe“butfor”testifitwasscientificallyimpossibletoshowcausationandsomethingelse(goreadthecaseagain)

• Materialcontributionwillonlybesubstitutedfor“butfor”whereitisimpossibletosaythataparticulardefendant’snegligentactinfactcausedtheinjury.Itimposesliabilitybutnotbecausetheactcausedtheinjury,butbecausetheactcontributedtotheriskthatinjurywouldoccur.

MULTIPLECAUSES:TWONEGLIGENTDEFENDANTS,ONECAUSEOFACCIDENT

COOKANDLEWISDISTINGUISHED

• “Reversingtheburdenofproofmaybejustifiedwheretwodefendantsnegligentlyfireinthedirectionoftheplaintiffandbytheirtortiousconductdestroysproof…Insuchacaseitisclearthattheinjurywasnotcausedbyneutralconduct.Itisquiteadifferentmattertocompensateaplaintiffbyreversingtheburdenofproofforaninjurythatmayverywellbeduetofactorsunconnectedtothedefendantandnotthefaultofanyone.”

COOKVLEWIS

Facts• Twohuntingpartiesintheforest;twoshootersinonepartyshoottheirgunsnegligentlyandhitaman

intheotherparty;whichshothitthemanandwhoisliable?Analysis/Rule

• ReversingtheburdenofproofisjustifiedwheretwoormoreD’sarenegligenttowardsthePlandcausationcan’tbeprovenbecausetheD’stortiousconductdestroyedproofoftheoffence

• ActionofthetwoD’scausedtheharmtothePlsotheyshouldhavetoabsolvethemselves(Summersv.Tice);notfairifPlisnotcompensated

NB:ApplyMCTRTestwhen2elementsexist:

1. Impossibletodeterminewhichparticularactcausedtheinjury2. Thereisanobviousconnectionbetweenthebreachcreatingtheriskthatledtotheharm.

REMOTENESS

• Evenifthereisanobligationtotakereasonablecareanditwasbreached,howfarwilllegalliabilityoftheDstretch?

• Isthedamagetooremotefromthebreachtoestablishnegligence/berecoverable?

24

o “Itisenoughtofixliabilityifonecouldforeseeinageneralwaythesortofthingthathappened.Theextentofthedamageanditsmannerofincidenceneednotbeforeseeableifphysicaldamageofthekindwhichinfactensuesisforeseeable”(Assiniboine)

o Ifthedamagecanberegardedasdifferentinkindfromwhatwasforeseeable,onecanescapeliability

• Remotenessdoesnotgetraisedineverycase;Remotenessanswershowthedamageflowsfromthebreach(howremoteisthedamagefromthebreachitself)

BASICPRINCIPLES

WAGONMOUND#1[1961]PC <rftest>

Facts• Bunkeroilwascarelessdischargedfromashipintoabay(breach)• Oilspreadtowheretherewasshiprepairshappening,andasparkfromweldingoperationsignited

andsettheoilonfire(causation)• Thefiredestroyedthewharf(damage)

Analysis/Rule• Thetestcomingoutforremotenessisusingforeseeabilityasthelimitingprinciple:“thetestforliabilityfor

shockisforeseeabilityofinjurybyshock”• Courtsaid:“amanshouldbeconsideredtoberesponsiblefortheprobableconsequencesofhisact.Todemand

moreofhimistooharsh…”• Inthiscase,questionshouldbeforeseeabilityofinjurybyfire

o Ddidnotknowandcouldnothaveknownthatoilcouldbesetalightwhenspreadonwater–damagewastooremote

HUGHESVLORDADVOCATE[1963]HOL

Facts• Employeesworkingonexposedmanholeandclearlymarkeditasdangerous.Duringtheirbreak,aboy

namedHugheswentdowntoexplore.• Aftergettingbackout,Hughestrippedanddroppedthelampintotheholewhereanexplosion

happenedcausinghimtofallbackandgetburnedAnalysis/Rule

• Damagewasnottooremote–possibilityofdangersofburningbyaccessible,unattendedlightsisareasonablyforeseeableconsequence

WAGONMOUND#2[1966]PC

Facts• Sameincident,differentPs:ownersofothershipsthatwasdamagedbythefire

Analysis/Rule

• ModernRemotenessQuestion:Isthedamagereasonablyforeseeablefromthestandpointofthebreach?

• Whenasking“remoteness”toincludeconsequencesthattheDwouldhaverecognizedasrealrisktowhichthereasonablepersonwouldhavenotignored

25

• Itwashisdutyandinteresttostopthedischargeofoil.Itwasarealrisknoreasonablemanwouldignore–andthereforebreachofduty,damagenottooremote

PALSGRAFVLONGISLANDRAILROADCO[1928]NYCA

Facts• Manbeingassistedontoatrain,employeesaccidentallyknockdownhiswrappedparceloffireworks

ontothetrackswhichexplodeuponlanding;causescalestofalldown,injuringPIssue

• WasPwithintherangeofRFforadutyshouldbeowed?Analysis/Rule

• Thereisareasonablelimitontheextensionofdutyinnegligentacts-iftheharmisnotwillful,thentheplaintiffmustprovethattheresultinginjuryresultedfromanapparentdangerinherentintheact

• “Ifnohazardwasapparenttotheeyeofordinaryvigilance,anactinnocentandharmless,atleastoutwardseeming,doesnottakeitselftothequalityofatortbecauseithappenedtobeawrong

RECURRINGSITUATIONS–VARIATIONSONREMOTENESS

THINSKULL

• ThinSkullDoctrine:Atortfeasortakeshisvictimashefindshim–iftypeofinjuryisforeseeablethentheextentofinjurydoesn’taffectliability.

SMITHVLEECHBRAIN[1962]QB

Facts• D’slipburntbymoltenmetal,treated,becomescancerousanddied.Lipwasalreadyinpre-cancerous

atthetimeofaccidentfromexposuretotarvaporsAnalysis/Rule

• Ifthedamageisreasonablyforeseeable,thescopeofthedamageisirrelevant–thinskulldoctrineapplies

o Itisnotthecasethatamanisliableonlyfortheextentofdamagewhichhecouldanticipate• Itwasreasonablyforeseeablethatsomeonemaygetaburnfromthatmoltenburntmetal,andthe

scopeofthedamage(thecanceranddeath)isirrelevantbecauseofthethinskulldoctrine(youtakethevictimastheyare)

EGGSHELLPERSONALITY

• Mentalsufferingflowingfromphysicalinjuryiscompensableunderthinskullo Oncedamageofaparticularkind[psychological]canbeforeseenthefactthatitarisesoris

continuedbyreasonofanunusualcomplexofeventsdoesnotavailthedefendant(MalcomvBroadhurst)

CRUMBLINGSKULL• CrumblingSkullDoctrine:IfthePhada“crumblingskull”(apredisposeddisease/condition),they

shouldnotbecompensatedtotheeffectofputtingtheminthepositiontothepositionofnon-crumblingskull(Athey)

26

• DdoesnothavetocompensatePfortheeffectsofadebilitatingpre-existingcondition

PSYCHIATRICDAMAGEW/OPHSYICALINJURY• Test:foreseeabilityofnervousshockorpsychiatricdamagetoareasonableCanadian(personwho

possessesreasonablerobustness&fortitude)• NecessaryforthePtobeendangeredthemselvesorwitnessaccident/aftermathwithunaidedsenses

(notthroughTV,radio,etc.)

DEVJIVBURNABY[1999]BCCA <aftermath>

Facts• Citydidnotproperlymaintainitsroads;Devjilosescontrolofvehicleandiskilled;familyisaskedto

identifythebody(notgruesome);seekingdamagesfornervousshockaspartofclaimAnalysis/Rule

• Psychiatricinjurymustbeacloseanddirectresultofanaccident;mustbemorethanthegrief,sorrowandlossthatnormallyfollowsdeath;itshouldamountto‘shock&horror’

• Thenatureoftheexperiencebywhichaninjuryisallegedtohavebeensufferedisoneofthe"controllingmechanisms"thatservetolimitthereachofliabilityfornervousshock

• ItwasnotRFthatpsychiatricinjurywouldflowfromD’snegligence;experienceofviewingthebodyinahospitalsettingcannotbeequatedto‘shock’and‘horror’

LEWVMOUNTSTJOSEPHHOSPITALSOCIETY[1997]BCSC <commofnews>

Facts• Pgoestovisitwifeinhospitalaftershewastogetroutinesurgery;anesthetist’snegligenceledtowife

sustainingcatastrophicbraininjury;DtoldPhiswifewasdyingandthathecouldgotoICUtoseeher;Pclaimingnervousshock/clinicaldepression

Issue• Canonebeliablefornegligentcommunicationofbadnews?

Analysis/Rule• “AftermathDoctrine”:onewhocomesimmediatelytothescenecanberegardedaswithinthescope

offoresightandduty• Shock-inducedpsychiatricdamageisforeseeableanddoesinfacteventuatethroughthenegligent

communicationofdistressinginformation

MUSTAPHAVCULLIGANWATER[2008]SCC

Facts• Decomposedflyinthewaterbottle.Pclaimspsychiatricdamage

Analysis/Ratio• Psychiatricdamagemustbea“real”foreseeablerisktoanordinarypersonofreasonablefortitude• CANADIANTEST:Isthispsychiatricdamagea“realrisk”thatwasreasonablyforeseeableasa

reasonablerobustCanadianoffortitude?o Whatneedstobereasonablyforeseeableisnervousshock(psychiatricdamage)

27

§ Nervousshock:recognizablepsychiatricillness;notmereupsetorannoyance,griefandsorrow

o Thelawwillnotimposeliabilityfortheexceptionalfrailtyofsomeindividuals• Succeedsonduty,breach,anddamage;failsoncausation–damageisnotconsistentwithwhatisRF

toapersonwithrobustfortitude

RESCUE&RESCUERS• CLduty:oncerescueisundertaken,thereisadutytoundertakeitnon-negligently(therescue-ee

becomesaforeseeableplaintiff,onewhoshouldbeintherescuer’scontemplationasbeinginjuredbycarelessness)

• Specialcommonlawaffirmativedutyowedbyprivatecarriertohispassengers• Rescuercanrecoverfromthesourceofthebreach

o Ifindividualputthemselvesinperil,ifitisRFthatsomeonewouldcomerescuethem,PowesthatpersonaDOC

o Ifa3rdparty(D)putPinperil,rescuercanrecoverfromD

HORSLEYVMACLAREN(OGOPOGOCASE)[1972]SCC

Facts• Passenger(Matthew)fallsoverboat;rescuer1triestodirectboattosave;2ndrescuerjumpsinand

diesofshockwhenbodyhitsicecoldwater;Matthewsbodydisappearsunderboat&isneverrecovered

Issue• DidDMcLaren’s(1strescuer/boatowner)firstnegligentrescuecreateasituationofperilthatinvited

Horsley’s(2ndrescuer)response?Analysis/Rule

• Dutyrequiresaconnectionbetweenspecificdefendantandcreationofperilo Ddoesnotneedtocreatesituationofperil

• Ifthenegligentrescuecreatesmoredanger,thenegligentrescueisabreachtotherescueeandabreachofyourdutytotheforeseeablesecondrescuer

INTERVENINGFORCES

• Iftheinterveningforceisareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceofthebreachandthedamageflowingfromit,itisnottooremote

SECONDACCIDENT

• A2ndaccidentwillnotbreakthechainifitiswithinthescopeoftheinitialactofnegligenceo Injurydoesnotstopatthemomentofthebreacho Considerationsofthedamagethatflowsfromorisassociatedwiththescopeofthatinjuryo Dutyofcontemplationextendstoreasonablecircumstancesexecutedbyareasonableperson

28

WIELANDVCYRILLORDCARPETS[1963]QB <liable>

Facts• P,whohadbeeninjuredbyD’snegligenceonabus,hadtowearacollararoundherneck;becauseof

thecollar,shecouldnotseeproperlyoutofherbifocalglasses,andfelldownstairs,furtheraggravatingherinjury

Issue• Wastheeventa"second(andseparate)accident”orwasitwithintheforeseeablescopeof

consequencesofthefirstevent?Analysis/Rule

• Itisnotnecessarytoforeseetheprecisemechanicsorchainofeventsinvolvedinthe2ndincident• Ifitis“foreseeablethatoneinjurymayaffectaperson’sabilitytocopewiththevicissitudesoflifeand

therebybeacauseofanotherinjury…foreseeabilityofthegeneralnaturewillsuffice”(butfor…)

MCKEWVHOLLAND[1969]HOL <notliable>

Facts• Leghadbeenweakenedinanaccident(breach)andgavewaysometimes;Pwasdescendingsteep

flightofstairs,feltlikelegwasgoingtogivewaysojumpedtoavoidfallingbutinsteadbrokehisankleAnalysis/Rule

• IfPactedunreasonablyandhisunreasonableconductisthecauseofthesecondinjury(novusactusinterveniens),theDwillnotbeheldliable–seversthechain.

• However,interveningnegligentactsgenerallywillnotnecessarilyrelievetheDliabilityofconsequences,ifthoseactsareaforeseeableconsequence

• 2ndactwasnotRFandPdidnotactreasonably;hadthelegsimplygivenoutandPsustainednewinjuries,argumentcouldbemadethatnewinjuriesflowedfromthefirstaccidentcausedbyD

MEDICALERROR

• Anerrorinmedicaltreatmentwillonlybeseenasanovusactusintervenienswhenthetreatmentisnegligent,suchthatthePcangetremediesfromthephysician(Mercer)

• Ifreasonablecareisusedbyacompetentphysician,eventhoughbyanerroraggravatesthedamages,theinitialDmayberesponsibleforthelaterinterveningactofamedicalerrorbecausemedicalmalpracticeisreasonablyforeseeable(MercervGray)

o Everytortfeasorcausinginjurytoapersonplacingtheminthepositionofseekingmedicalhelpmustassumetheinherentrisksofcomplications.(PappvLeclerc)

• TheonusisonDtoproveinterveningmedicalerrorwasnegligentinordertoescapeliability• Firstnegligentdoctorcouldbeliablefortheaggravationtoinjurycausedbysubsequentnegligentdoctorif

thatnegligencewasreasonable(Pricev.Milawksi)o Inthiscase,thenegligenceofthe2nddocdoesnotbreakthechainbecausethe2nddoctors’

negligencewasreasonablyforeseeable

29

NEGLIGENT,INTENTIONAL,&CRIMINALACTS

• Eveniftheinterveningactisofnegligence,intentional/criminalact–iftherewasadutytotakereasonablecare,theDmaystillbeliable(HarrisvTTC,Stansbie)

HARRISVTTC[1967]SCC <negligence>

Facts• Childsustainedinjuriesonbusbystickinghisarmoutthewindow,signsayingnottodothat;driver

pulledawayfromthestopnegligently,whichledtoP’sinjuryIssue

• Wasthechild’sdamagetooremotetobeRF?Analysis/Rule

• Ifone’snegligencecausestheinjury,theywillliable,especiallyiftheeventwasonethatwasRF–causalconnectionbetweenbreachanddamage

• Butforthedriverpullingawaynegligently,wouldthechildhavesustainedtheinjuries?

STANSBIEVTROMAN[1948]KB <criminalact>

Facts• Adecoratorleftclient’shouseunlocked,thiefbrokein

Issue• Wasthedecorator’snegligencethecauseofthetheft?

Analysis/Rule• Theactofnegligenceisthefailuretotakereasonablecaretoguardagainsttheverythingthat

happened

INTERMEDIATEEXAMINATION,WARNINGS&THELEARNEDINTERMEDIARY• Itemcannotbemanufacturednegligentlyandmanufacturerhasdutytowarnofdangers/risk

(Donoghue)• Why?Knowledgeimbalanceandreliance–consumerhasnowayofknowingalltherisksassociated

withanygivenproduct• Warningsmustbeexplicitandreasonablycommunicated(dependingondanger)• Dutytowarniscontinuous–notonlythedangersknownatthetimeofsalebutalsoaftertheproducthas

beensoldanddelivered• Whetherthelearnedintermediaryseversthechaininbreachquestionsisamatterofreasonable

foreseeabilityo WasitRFthatamanufacturer’sfailuretosatisfactorilywarnLIwouldcauseinjurytoX?o LI=fullyapprisedofrisks;wheretheyareaLI,solongastheyhavebeenwarned,

manufacturer’sdutyisdischarged

30

IVESVCLAREBROS[1971]ONHC <intermediateexamination,warning>

Facts• FurnacemanufacturedandinstalledbyCB,inspectedbyTwinCityGas;furnacedefective,PcallsTCG3

timesforrepairs,furnaceleakscausingdamagetoPAnalysis/Rule

• NegligenceonpartofbothCBandTCG–CBfornegligentlysupplyingadefectiveproduct,TCGforfailingtowarnPoftherisks,appreciatingseriouseffectsofthedefect,andremedyingthefurnace

o Inspectiondoesnotbreakchain

HOLLISVDOWCORNING[1995]SCC <warning,LI>

Facts• Pgotbreastimplants,LIdidnotwarnofpotentialcomplicationssuchasrupture,DdidnotwarnLIof

rupturepossibilitybutwasawareofriskAnalysis/Rule

• Manufacturerhasadutytowarnconsumerdirectly,butsometimesawarningtoaLImayreplacemanufacturer’sdutytosupplywarningdirectlytoconsumer

• LearnedIntermediaryRule:“Generally,theruleisapplicableeitherwhereaproductishighlytechnicalinnatureandisintendedtobeusedonlyunderthesupervisionofexperts,orwherethenatureoftheproductissuchthattheconsumerwillnotrealisticallyreceiveadirectwarningfromthemanufacturerbeforeusingtheproduct.”

• Breachhereisnotnegligence;itisfailureofthedutytowarn

DEFENCESTONEGLIGENCE

CONTRIBUTORYNEGLIGENCE

• NegligenceAct,Chapter333:Apportionmentofliabilityfordamages

o (1)Ifbythefaultof2ormorepersonsdamageorlossiscausedtooneormoreofthem,theliabilitytomakegoodthedamageorlossisinproportiontothedegreetowhicheachpersonwasatfault.

o (2)Despitesubsection(1),if,havingregardtoallthecircumstancesofthecase,itisnotpossibletoestablishdifferentdegreesoffault,theliabilitymustbeapportionedequally.

o (3)Nothinginthissectionoperatestomakeapersonliablefordamageorlosstowhichtheperson'sfaulthasnotcontributed.

• 3waysinwhichPcancontributingtotheirowninjuries:i. contributingtotheeventwhichcausedtheinjuriesii. exposingthemselvestoariskofbeinginvolvedinaninjuriouseventiii. failingtotakereasonableprecautionstominimizeinjuries(shouldtheinjuriousevent

occur)–“seatbeltdefence”

31

GALASKEVO’DONNELL[1994]SCC <seatbeltdefence>

Facts• P,age8,andfatherwereinD’scar;Pnotwearingseatbelt,accidenthappenscausingPtosustain

injuriesbecausehewasnotwearingaseatbelt;PclaimingD’snegligenceinnotensuringseatbeltswerefastened

Analysis/Rule• Duty:Adriverofacarowesadutytoallofhispassengerstotakereasonablestepstoprevent

foreseeableinjurieso Forpassengersunder16,“reasonablecare”meansensuringthattheywearseatbeltso Presenceofparentinthecarmaymeanthatresponsibilityissharedbutdoesnotnegatethe

dutyowedtopassengersunder16• Passengersover16hasadutytothemselvestowearaseatbeltandthefailuretodosowillresultin

anassessmentofcontributorynegligence(YuanvFarstad)

VOLUNTARYASSUMPTIONOFRISK(VOLENTINONFITINJURIA)

• “Thevolunteerknowsnoinjury”–completedefencewhensuccessfulo DoctrineofVolentimeans:

a) Pagrees,expresslyorimpliedly,tobeartheinjuriousconsequencesoftheD’snegligentconduct–youareagreeingtothenegligenceoftheD

b) ThattheDisrelievedofanydutyofcaretothePinrespecttotheparticularriskofharm• Whatisrequiredis“agenuineinferencethattheplaintiffconsentednotmerelytotheriskofinjury,

buttothelackofreasonablecarewhichmayproducethatrisk”o PisconsentingtothebreachofDOCifitistoarise

HAMBLEYVSHEPLEY[1967]OCA <policeofficers>

Facts• Claimbypolicemanforpersonalinjurieshesustainedwhileonthejob

Issue• Doesdoctrineofvolentiapplytothoseinjuriessustainedinthedischargeofapublicduty?

Analysis/Rule• No–policeofficerdoesnotconsenttothenegligenceofotherssimplybecausehe“persistsin

employmentinfullawarenessofrisk”• VolentinolongerprotectsemployerfromCLliabilitytoanemployeewho,incarryingouthisdutiesof

employment,isinjuredbecauseofanunsafeworkingsystemofwhichheisaware

CROCKERVSUNDANCE[1988]SCC <sports,waivers>

Facts• ResortallowsPtoparticipateinatubingcontest,despitebeingvisiblyundertheinfluenceofalcohol;P

getsinjuredAnalysis/Rule

• Crocker’sparticipationcannotbeviewedasvoluntaryassumptionofrisk;alcoholwasinvolvedthusimpossibletoconcludeheassumedlegalrisk

32

• Contractualwaiverclausecanserveasafulldefenceintorto BUT,Pmustbeawareofwhattheyaresigningandcomprehendit

ILLEGALITY(EXTURPICAUSA)

• Ifoneisengagedinillegalactivities,theycannotsueanotherfordamagesthatariseoutoftheirownillegalactivity

• Purpose:preventPsfromprofiting/benefittingofftheirillegalactivity

HALLVHEBERT[1993]SCC

Facts• P&Ddrivinghomefromparty,bothintoxicated;D’scarstalls,PgetsbehindwheeltohelpDrollcar;P

losescontrol,carflips;suingDforinjuryIssue

• Underwhatcircumstancesshouldtheimmoralorcriminalconductofaplaintiffbartheplaintifffromrecoveringdamagestowhichheorshewouldotherwisebeentitled?

Analysis/Rule• Exturpidoesnotapply:Pisnottryingtoprofitfromillegalconduct,butclaimingdamagesas

compensationforhisinjuries

BCVZASTOWNY[2008]SCC

Facts• Psexuallyassaultedbyprisonofficialwhileinprison;afterrelease,becameheroinaddictandrepeat

offender;PallegessexualassaultcontributedtoP’ssubsequentdifficultiesIssue

• Dorecoverabledamagesincludelostincomeduringperiodsofincarceration?Analysis/Rule

• No–exturpicausadoctrinebarsrecoveryfortimespentinprisono Acivilawardofdamageswould“constitutearebateofthenaturalconsequencesofbreaking

thecriminallaw”;notrationaltocompensateapersonforhispunishmentundercriminallaw

EXCLUSIONCLAUSES

• ContractualwaiverclausecanserveasafulldefencetoaclaimintortbuttheymustbedrawntotheP’sattentionwhentheyareinastatecapableofcomprehension(Crocker)

LIABILITYOFPUBLICAUTHORITIES

PROCEEDINGSAGAINSTTHECROWN

• s.(2)CrownProceedingAct:createsliabilityfortheCrownasifitwereapersono Govtsubjecttosamelawsascitizens

33

NEGLIGENCELIABILITYOFSTATUTORYPUBLICAUTHORITIES

• StatutoryPublicAuthorities:havetheirpowerprescribedtothembystatutesthatallowsthemtoexercisefunctionsinthepublicinterest

o Entailsbothpolicyandoperational/implementationfunctionso SPAareandoughttobevicariouslyliablefortortscommittedbytheiremployeesifthe

employee’sactwouldbetortiousifcommittedbyaprivateactor• DOCinnegligencemaybederivedfrombothastatutoryduty(operationalfunctions)andstatutory

power(policy-makingfunctions)• Alwayschecklanguageofstatutes!Somemightexplicitlyexemptduties• CooperarticulatesAnnstestinpublicauthority

o Step1:EstablishingaPFDOC(a.RFofharm,b.proximity–a“close&direct”relationshipbetweentheparties(thinkHill),factorsincludereliance,expectations,andrepresentations)

§ Waswhattheyweredoingapolicyoranoperationalfunction?o Step2:Residualpolicyconsiderations(whetheranyRPCsoutsiderelationshipbetweenparties

justifiesnegatingDOC

1.PROXIMITY:PFDOC

TAYLORVCANADA[2012]ONCA <proximity>

Facts• TMJimplantinsertedintoP;causesdamage;PclaimsHealthCanadafailedtopreventagainst

importationandsaleofimplants,regulateandmonitortheirsale,warnLIandconsumersaboutdangersandrisks

Issue• Whethertherepresentation&relianceontheregulators’publicdutiesareessentialtoafindingofa

PFprivatelawDOC?Rule

• Thetermsofthelegislationitselfwill“announce”whetheraprivatelawdutyofcarewasintendedo Wherenotdeterminative(onewayortheother),factorssuchasinteraction,natureof

powers/duties,willbeconsidered• Statutesarecreatedasadutytothepublicakaeveryoneatlarge,butinsomecases,thefactorsof

proximityaresocompellingandintense(ex.CanadianHill)thattheargumentforproximitycanbemadeout

o Sometimes,theymayconflictwithaprivatedutyowedtojustyou,inwhichcasethelegislativedutyowedtoeveryonetakespriority

Analysis:• Taylorpartofasmall,definedclass(likeDoe),andwhileHChadfailedtocorrectmisrepresentations

madeaboutthesafetyoftheimplants,therewasnotacloseanddirectrelationshipbetweenthe2• PAfailedtoacttoprotectthelifeandsafetyofindividualswhenfixedw/knowledgeofaclear&

presentdangertoadiscreteandidentifiablesegmentofthecommunity• However,findingadutytothisclasisnotinconsistentw/themoregeneraldutyowed

34

• NotsufficientevidencetoestablishproximitythatgivesrisetoaPFprivatelawDOCNB:ProximityFactors

• ThenatureofrepresentationsmadebyaPAandthenatureofanyrelianceplacedonthoserepresentationsbyParepartofthefactualandlegalcircumstancestobeconsideredindeterminingtheproximityoftherelationshipbetweenthetwo

• RepresentationsmadespecificallytoPandreliedoncouldcreateadirectconnectionbetweenthePAandthePsufficienttosupportafindingofaprivatelawDOC

• GeneralrepresentationsmadebyPAtothepublicandreliedonbythePcannot,ontheirown,createadirectproximaterelationship

o But!Withotherfactors,couldgiverisetoarelationshipbetweenthetwothatissufficientlycloseanddirecttoestablishaPFprivatelawDOCowedtoP

FULLOKWAVPINKERTON[2010]SCC <DOCowed,nobreach>

Facts:• duringastrike,protestorssetanexplosive,killed9miners;survivors+widowssuingPinkerton’s,the

securitycompanyhiredbytheowners;P’sclaim:failuretoprotectminersfromdangerbytheprotestors

Issue:DoesthegovtofCanoweaDOCtothefamilyoftheminers?

Analysis:• Proximityfactors:

o Minersareasmall&clearlydefinedgroupo Inspectorshadclose&directpersonalcontextw/miners(notasparticularasinHill,butnotas

diffuseinHobart)o Inspectorshadastatutorydutytoinspectmine,ceaseworkiffoundunsafe

• Close&directrelationshipbetweeninspectors&minersgiverisetoaPFDOC• GovdidnotbreachtheirSOCbecausetheyreliedonlegaladvicenottoclosethemine

BCVIMPERIALTOBACCO[2005]SCC

Facts:• (1)IT+13othertobaccocompaniessuedbyprovinceforrecoveryofhealthcarecostsrelatedto

treatmentoftobaccorelatedillnesses(claimsbroughtunderTobaccoDamagesandHealthCareCostsRecoveryAct)

• (2)KnightvIT–actionbroughtbyclassofconsumersrecostsoflowtarcigarettes

NB:PAliabilitycasebecauseinturn,thetobaccocompaniesaresuinggovofCanadafortheirnegligentmisrepresentations(contributions)toconsumers+tobaccocoslowtarcigarettesarelessharmful

Analysis:• AnnsBranch1–Factorsoutsideofstatutecreatingproximity?

o Toconsumers,no-more“direct”interactionsrequired.

35

o Companies,yes(interactionsincludedhelpindesigning,promotinglowtarcigarettes;Canadainadvisorrole;commercialrelationship)–PFDOCestablished

• AnnsBranch2–residualpolicyconsiderations?o Discretionaloneisnotenoughtomakenon-reviewablepolicy–onlytrue/corepolicydecisions

(asasubsetofdiscretionary)areprotected(ex.macromatterslikeairsafety)§ Whatarethese?“discretionarylegislativeoradministrativedecisions/conductthatare

groundedinsocial,economic&politicalconsiderations”generallymadeby“legislatorsorofficerswhoseofficialresponsibilityrequiresthemtoassessorbalancepublicresponsibilities”(USSC,Gaubert)

o Inthiscase,encouragingsmokerstoswitchtolessharmfullowtarcigarettesisapolicydecisionadoptedatthehighestlevel

§ representationsmadetocompaniesandconsumers,evenifinaccurate,“part&parcel”ofthispolicy;thus,representationscouldnotattracttortliability

TRESPASS

Wrongfulness:directinterferencew/personorproperty;Ponlyneedstomakealaconicplea(showthatinterferencewasdirect)toestablishaPFcaseoftrespass;onusthenswitchestoDtoprovetheinterferencewasnotwrongful(intentionalornegligent)

Iftrespassestablished,alldamagesfromitarerecoverable(noneedtodemonstrateRF)

GOSHENVLARIN[1974]NSCA <laconicplea>

Facts:• D,anunpopularref,wasgettingstuffthrownathim,tryingtoexitarena;bumpsintoP,whoallegesD

pushedhim,causingdamage;Psuingforbattery,claiminginjurywasdirectRule:

• Inanactionfordamagesintrespass,wherethePprovesthathehasbeeninjuredbythedirectactoftheD,theonusfallsupontheDtoprovethathisactwasbothunintentional&w/onegligence

COOKVLEWIS[1952]SCC <hunting>

Facts:• 2huntersshootingguns;notknownwhichoneinjuredP;acknowledgedthatwhoeveractuallyshotP

wasnegligent–itwasnegligenttoshootatthetreedareawherethePwasstandingRule:

• WhereaPisinjuredbyforceapplieddirectlytohim,hiscaseismadebyprovingthefact• OnusthenfallsuponDtoprovethatsuchtrespasswasutterlywithouthisfault

DAHLBERGVNAYDIUK[1965]MANCA <hunting>

Facts:• Farmershotbyhunters

Analysis:• AppliesCvLtest

36

• Policyjustificationinthiscase:“huntersmustrecognisethatfiringoverlandw/opermissionoftheownerconstitutesatrespasstoland&,ifinjuryresults,trespasstoperson….Ifahunterchoosestohuntinafarmingarea,hemustdosoinfullawarenessoftheparamountrightofthefarmertocarryonhisbusinessw/oriskofinjuryfromstraybullets”

NON-MARINEUNDERWRITERS,LLOYD'SOFLONDONV.SCALERA[2000]SCC <sexualbattery>

Facts:• Actionagainst5BCtransitdriversforallegationsofsexualassault;Dhadinsurancepolicywhich

providedcompensatorycoverageforbodilyinjuryarisingfromtheinsured'spersonalactions,excepting"bodilyinjuryorpropertydamagecausedbyanyintentionalorcriminalact"

• PseekingdeclarationthattheyhavenodutytodefendtheDintheallegationsAnalysis:

• ReaffirmslaconicpleatoestablishPFcaseintrespass• Whenapersoninterfereswiththebodyofanother,aPFcaseofviolationofP’sautonomyismadeout• Compensationstemsnotfromfault,butfromviolationoftherighttopersonalautonomy

ASSAULT

• Intentionalcreationofareasonableapprehension(threat)ofimminentharm(Tuberville)o NoproofofphysicaldamageisrequiredbuttheP’sfearorapprehensionofimminentharm

mustbereasonable(BrucevDyer)

BRUCEVDYER[1966]ONHC <reasonableapprehension>

Facts:• PcutoffDonhwy;getintoafight,DpunchedP’sjaw;claimingself-defence:P’sconductconstituted

anassault(shakingoffist,blockinghiscarin)Rule:

• Reasonableapprehensionrequirement:“thereneedbenoactualintentionorpowertouseviolence;itisenoughifP,onreasonablegrounds,believesthatheisindangerofit”

Analysis:• Self-defenceapplies;PcommittedinitialassaultonDwhenheblockedD’scar(Ptookactivesteps)• Dwasjustifiedindefendinghimselffromtheassaultimposedonhim

MAINLANDSAWMILLSVUSWLOCAL1-3567[2007]BCSC <imminentthreats>

Facts:• Labourdispute;LocalAreturnstowork,LocalBdoesnot&upsetLocalAhas;MembersofLocalB

congregateinLocalA’smillyard,someenteredmill,somecarriedsticks.Accountssaytheywere“noisyandintimidating,”preventedworkersfornextshiftfromentering

Rule:• Preventingsomeonefromdoingthatwhichtheyarelegallyentitledtodomaysatisfytheimminent

apprehensionrequirements

37

o Ie.JustbecauseapersoncanavoidimminentharmdoesnotmakeDnotliableforassault(ex.guntoyourhead,“yourmoneyoryourlife”–choosingmoneyavoidsthethreattoyourlife)

• Wordsdonotmakeanactorliableforassault,unless,combinedw/otheracts/circumstances,theyputtheotherinreasonableapprehensionofanimminentharmfuloroffensivecontactwiththeirperson

o “Athreatofviolencewhichexhibitsanintentiontoassaultandapresentabilitytocarryoutthethreatwillconstituteassault”

WARMANVGROSVENOR[2008]ONSC <reasonableapprehension>

Facts:• PsuingDfordefamation,assault&invasionofprivacyforinternetblogposts;Dpostedthingssuchas:

“he’sadeadjewwalking,”“faggoty-looking,”“Ihaveagunanditsbulletshaveyournameonthem…”Rule:

• Frightening/threateningsomeonedoesnotconstituteanassaultunlesstheeventfearedisimminentAnalysis

• Pisreasonablyapprehensiveofimminentphysicalcontact–Drepeatedlypostedandemailedthreats• Pentitledtodamagesforassault

BATTERY

Trespasstotheperson;protectstheinterestinbodilysecurityfromdeliberateinterferencebyothers

COLEVTURNER[1998]US <rule>

Rule:1. Touchingofanotherinangerisabattery2. Touchingeachothergently,withoutanyviolenceorharm≠battery3. Ifeitherusesviolenceorforceagainsttheotherinrudeinordinatematter,closertobattery

COLLINSVWILCOCK[1984]UK <ordinaryconduct>

Rule:• Fundamentalprincipleisthateveryperson’sbodyisinviolate;anytouchingofanotherperson,

howeverslight,mayamounttoabattery• Physicalcontactacceptedinordinaryconductisnotbattery(ex.brushingsomeoneonabusystreet)

BETTELVYIM[1978]ONHC <foreseeability>

Facts:• PthrowingmatchesintoD’sstore,setsitonfire;DgrabsP,startsshakinghim,accidentallyhead-butts

P’snose;DhadnointentiontoinjureP,purposeinshakingwastogetaconfessionRule:

• Ifphysicalcontactwasintended,thefactthatitsmagnitudeexceededallreasonableorintendedexpectationsshouldmakenodifference

o Intentionalwrongdoershouldbearresponsibilityfortheinjuriescausedbytheirconducto Butnoliabilityforpureaccident!

38

SEXUALWRONGDOING

Unwantedsexualcontact=sexualbattery;mayconstituteassault&intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress

NORBERGVWYNRIB <powerimbalance>

Facts:• P,patientaddictedtopainkillers;performssexualfavoursonthedoctorforpills;allegessexualbattery

Rule:• Consentcanbevitiatedifimpairedbypowerimbalanceandexploitation

MKVMH <fiduciaryduty>

Facts:• Incestvictimsuesherfatherfor18yearsofongoingabuse;bringingcase15yearslater

Rule/Analysis:• Incestfoundtobeabatteryandabreachoffiduciaryduty

o Parentowesafiduciarytotheirchildandexploitingthemisadirectbreachofthat• LimitationsProblem:“reasonablediscoverability”approachapplied–thenatureofeventmadeit

reasonablethatPwouldnothavediscoveredtheconnectionbetweentheevent&thedamagepriortoatimethatplaceditw/ilimitations

NB:LimitationAct,s,8:exceptforspecialsituationsreferredtoins.9-11,aclaimisdiscoveredbyapersononthefirstdayonwhichthepersonkneworreasonablyoughttohaveknownthat:

a) injury,lossordamagehadoccurred;b) theinjury,lossordamagewascausedbyorcontributedtobyanactoromission;c) theactoromissionwasthatofthepersonagainstwhomtheclaimisormaybemade;d) that,havingregardtothenatureoftheinjury,lossordamage,acourtproceedingwouldbean

appropriatemeanstoseektoremedytheinjury,lossordamage.ExemptedClaims:

a) aclaimrelatingtomisconductofasexualnature,including,withoutlimitation,sexualassault,i. ifthemisconductoccurredwhiletheclaimantwasaminor,andii. whetherornottheclaimant'srighttobringthecourtproceedingwasatanytimegovernedby

alimitationperiod;b) aclaimrelatingtosexualassault,whetherornottheclaimant'srighttobringthecourtproceedingwas

atanytimegovernedbyalimitationperiod;c) aclaimrelatingtoassaultorbattery,whetherornottheclaimant'srighttobringthecourtproceeding

wasatanytimegovernedbyalimitationperiod,iftheassaultorbatteryoccurredwhiletheclaimanti. wasaminor,orii. waslivinginanintimateandpersonalrelationshipwith,orwasinarelationshipoffinancial,

emotional,physicalorotherdependencywith,apersonwhoperformed,contributedto,consentedtooracquiescedintheassaultorbattery;

39

FALSEIMPRISONMENT

Toestablish,Pmustshow:1. Thattheyweretotallydeprivedofliberty(orreasonablybelievedsuch)2. Deprivationwasagainsttheirwill(noconsent)3. DintentionallycausedtheP’sbodilyrestraint(canbepsychological,physical,ormaterial)

Oncetheelementsareshown,theonusshiftstotheDtojustifythedetention,eitheratCLorbystatute.

NB:NegligentFIispossible;requiresactualinjuryforrecovery(ex.accidentallylockingsomeoneinafreezer)

BIRDVJONES <totalrestraint>

Facts:• Ppreventedfromproceedingindesireddirectionalongpublicfootwayonabridge,althoughhe“was

atlibertytomovehispersonandgoinanyotherdirection,athisfreewill&pleasure;noactualforceorrestraintonhispersonwasused”

Holding:• Nofalseimprisonment

Rule:RestraintRequirement

• Therestraintofmovementmustbetotal,ifonlymomentarily(psychological,physical,ormoral)• TherestraintisnottotalifthereisareasonablemeansofescapeleftopentotheP

o Ex.ifshutinaroomfromwhichonecaneasilyexitw/odanger–noimprisonment,evenifonemustcommitaminortrespasstoescape

o Ifsomeoneblocksyourroutebutthereisanalternateyoucantake–noimprisonmentPsychological,MoralRestraint

• ‘Restraint’forFIpurposesmaybeimposedbybarriersorotherphysicalmeans,byanimplicit/explicitthreatofforce,orbyanassertionoflegalauthority

• Pwhoreasonablyperceivesthatforcemaybeemployedisimprisonedifdecidingtosubmitandnottoriskviolence

• “Moralpressure”mayalsoconstitute‘restraint’∴‘imprisonment’aswhereaPsubmitstoD’sactsforfearofpublicembarrassment

• Touchisnotrequired-thekeyiswhethertherehasbeenanassertionof&submissiontocontrol

CHAYTORETALVLONDON <psychological>

Facts:• StoremanageraccusesPsofbeingsuspicious;Psgow/policetoavoid‘embarrassment’&because

theyfeltcompelled;detainedfor15minsatstationbeforebeingreleased;suedstoreforFI–SMcauseddetention

Analysis:• Penteredandremainedin‘imprisoned’situationbecausetheyfeltpsychologicallycompelledtodoso

40

• ByDactingthewayhedid,heeffectivelycreatedapsychologicaltypeofimprisonment• ThisFIcausedfalsearrest:Dcauseddetentionbyprovidingfalseinfo,POsactingonbasisofinfow/o

exerciseofdiscretion–doesnotbreakcausalchainFALSEIMPRISONMENTVFALSEARREST

• FIwillfollowafalsearrest(whereapersonhasnotbeenlawfullyarrested)o Ex.Pis‘falselyarrested’fortheactofthePOarrestinghim,and‘falselyimprisoned’when

placedinthebackofthecopcar• FI&FAmustbedirectlycausedbytheD• WhereFA&FIaretheresultoftheexerciseofjudicialinterventionordiscretion,thatchainisbroken

–maybeabletoshowmaliciousprosecutionornegligence(Hill)

AWARENESS• PersoncanbeFIw/obeingaware(ex.whentheyareasleep,unconscious,orotherwiseoblivious)• Principleinplacetoprotectchildren,mentallydisabled• Confinementcanbecausedbyfailuretoact(ex.notfreeingaprisoneraftertheirterm,LebarvCAN)

HVAVLYNCH <continuousconsent>

Facts:• Psychiatricpatientsayssheexpressedherwishtoleave,notinformedthatshehadnotbeen

committed;treatingphysiciansclaimtheyreasonablybelievedshewasconsentingtotreatmentRule:

• Ifconsentiscontinuousandnotwithdrawn,thereisnofalseimprisonmentAnalysis:

• NoevidencethatDatanytimefalselyimprisonedP• Consentneverended&theytookappropriatestepstocareforPduringmanifestationsofhermental

illness,asshehadconsentedtouponadmittance&thereaftermaintained• PdidnotmeetBOPforestablishingFI

HERDVWEARDALESTEEL <initialconsent>

Facts:• Minerdemandedtobebroughtupbeforetheendofaworkday

Rule:• Ifsomeoneentersasituationofconfinementoncertainunderstoodterms,thatpersoncannotinsist

onbeingreleasedwhenevertheychooseo Ex.apassengercannotdemandtoleaveatrainbetweenstations

NB:similarly,apersonistakentohaveagreedtobedetainedtoundergoasearchatanairport,ifthatisthenormalprocedureorareasonablenoticetothateffectisposted

41

TRESPASSTOLAND

Aninterferencewiththeowner’srightofexclusivepossession,w/otheowner’spermission

• Occurswhenoneentersontosomeoneelse’sspace(air,surface,subsurface)w/olawfuljustificationo Pmusthaveexclusive,possessionorrightofpossessiono DoctrineofTrespassbyRelation:permitsaPw/onlyanimmediaterighttopossession(not

actuallyinpossession)whenthetrespassoccurred,tosueintrespassforthatintrusiononcehesubsequentlyacquirespossession;mostfrequentlyinvokedincasesinvolvingvacantland

§ Righttopossessionmustbeimmediate(CoopervCrabtree)• Ex.LLcannotbringaTTL,onlytenantcan;LLdoesnothaverighttopossession

• BOPisonDtoshowthattheyhadpermission/consent(Pjusthastomakelaconicplea)• Noproofofactualdamageisnecessary;canbeintentionalornegligent

TRESASSACT

• Purposeoflegislation:minimizeincidentsoftrespassthroughrequirementsofsignageandprovisionsdealingwithenclosedland

• Clarifiesthatsurveyorswhoenterlandforpurposeofsurveyingwillnotbetrespassing

Trespassprohibited4(1)Subjectto4.1,apersoncommitsanoffenceiftheydoanyofthefollowing: (a)enterpremisesthatareenclosedland;

(b)enterpremisesafterthepersonhashadnoticefromanoccupierofthepremisesoranauthorizedpersonthattheentryisprohibited;(c)engagesinactivityonorinpremisesafterthepersonhashadnoticefromanoccupierofthepremisesoranauthorizedpersonthattheactivityisprohibited.

(2)Apersonfoundonorinpremisesthatareenclosedlandispresumednottohavetheconsentofanoccupieroranauthorizedpersontobethere.

HARRISONVCARSWELL(MB) <legislatedtrespass>

Facts:• Dpicketingpeacefullyinamall;ownerofmalltoldDtostoporbechargedw/trespass

Issue/Holding:• Didtheownerofthemallhavesufficientpossessionoverthecommonareastopresscharges?• Yes,ownerhasprivatepropertyrightsdespitetheunrestrictedinvitationtothepublictoenteronto

thepremisesRule/Analysis:

• MBlegislationprovidesthatapersoncommitsatrespasswhentheydon’tleaveafterbeingdirectedtodosobythe‘occupier’

• PossessiondoesnotceasetobeexclusivesolongasthereistherighttocontrolentryoftheGPo P,asowner&occupier,hadnotrelinquishedthatrightofcontrol

42

WILDWOODMALLVSTEVENS(SASK) <nolegislatedtrespass>

Facts:• Unionmemberspicketinginamall;P,ownerofmall,seekinganinjunctiontorestrainactivity• DistinguishedfromHarrison–SaskhaslawsprohibitingtrespasslikeMB

Rule/Holding:• Themostthatcanbesaidistherespondentexercisescontroloverthepremisesbutdoesnotexercise

thatcontroltotheexclusionofotherpersons.• PcannotmaintainanactionintrespassagainstD

TREETRESPASS

• Ifbranchescrossthepropertyline,nomatterhowslightly,itisatrespass• Propertyownerhastherighttoprunethembacktothepropertylinew/ogivingnoticetothe

neighbourwhoownsthetreesNB:notclearwhathappensifpruningsubsequentlyleadstothedeathofthetree,but“itisnowacceptedthroughoutCLthatanobligationrestsoneveryonetotakereasonablecarenottocauseneedlessinjurytothepropertyofothers”(AndersonvSkender)

TURNERVTHORNE[1960]ONHC <continuedpresence>

Facts:• Deliverypersonmistakenlywenttowronghouse,noonehome,openedP’sgarage&leftpackages

there;whenPcamehome,hetrippedovertheboxes,sustaininginjuriesRule/Analysis:

• Atrespassmaybecommittedbythecontinuedpresenceontheland,whichtheactorhastortiously(throughtrespass)placedthereon,despitewhethertheactorcanremoveit

• Byenteringthegarage,Dcommittedatrespass;continuedforaslongastheboxeswerethere• Innocentmistakeisnotadefencetotrespassanditsconsequences.

o Trespassertolandisliablefordirect&indirectpersonalinjuriesresultingfromtrespass

INTENTIONALTORTS

Wrongfulness:tortactionsdealingw/intentionalinterferencesw/persons,theirchattels&theirlando Needstobedirect&forcibleinterferences;actionablew/oproofofdamage

INTENTIONALINFLICTIONOFMENTALSUFFERING

Elements:1. D’sspecificactswereextreme,flagrantoroutrageous2. Specificactswerecalculatedtoproduceharm(“someeffectofthekindthatwasproduced”)toan

ordinaryperson(unlessspecialknowledge)3. Specificactscausedharm

43

o “harm”mustbe“recognisablephysicalorpsychopathologicalharm”;“visibleandprovableillness”(notmereupset)

WILKINSONVDOWNTON <practicaljoke>

Facts:• Asa‘joke,’DtoldPthatherhusbandwasgravelywoundedinanaccident;Psufferedaviolentshock

tohernervoussystemcausedbyjokeRule/Analysis:

• DhaswillfullydoneanactcalculatedtocausephysicalharmtoP–toinfringeherlegalrighttopersonalsafety,andhasinfacttherebycausedphysicalharmtoher

o Physicalharminthiscasemeansmentalsuffering

DEFENCESTOTRESPASS&INTENTIONALTORTS

CONSENT

• Ifindividualsconsenttotheintentionalinvasionoftheirinterests,theywillbeprecludedfromrecoveringanydamagesintortfromthatresult

• Basedonthepresumptionofautonomy&freewill;presumedthattheindividualhasfreedomtoconsentornot

• OnusisonDtoestablishthefactswhichwillprovidevalidconsent• Maybegivenexplicitly(verbal/writing)orimplicitly(throughparticipationinacertainevent,

demeanourorotherbehaviour)o Consentisanincorporealthing;writtenconsentmaybeevidenceofthis,butisnottheconsent

itself§ Writtenconsentcanbevitiatedbyfraud,duress,orlackofcapacity

IMPLIEDCONSENT

• Consentmustbetakenasgrantedunlesstheactorknew(oroughttohaveknown)thatconsenthasbeenwithheld

o Ex.notbatterytotouchsomeonetogetattn.,theoryisintheordinaryusesofsociety–pplhaveconsentedtoordinarycontact)

• Determiningimpliedconsentisdoneonafactualbasis–isthisthekindofactivitywhichwouldordinarilybeunderstoodbysocietyingeneralasonetowhichweallgenerallyconsent?

• Consentmayalsobeimpliedfromanindividualplaintiff’sactsorfrompastbehavior(O’BrienvCunard)

O’BRIENVCUNARDCOMASSACHUSETTS <implied>

Facts:• PonshipgoingtoBoston,whichhasstrictquarantinerestrictionsonsmallpox;incomersneeded

certificateofvaccinationtobepermittedonland;signspostedallovership;on-boarddocvaccinatedP;Pclaimingnoconsent,battery

Rule:• Ifaperson’sbehaviourisindicativeofconsent,Disjustifiedintheiractofinterference

44

• Dcanbeguidedbyaperson’sovertactsormanifestationsoffeelingstoimplyconsentAnalysis:

• Impliedconsent–noticesaroundtheship,Pstayedinline,saidnothingabouthavingnowishtobevaccinated,heldupherarmtobevaccinated,tookthevaccinationticket

NON-MARINEUNDERWRITERSVSCALERA <sexualactivity>

Facts:• Pengagesinsexualactivityw/busdrivers;claimingsexualbattery,noconsent;Dadmitstoeventsbut

arguesimpliedconsentRule:

• Consentisnotimpliedunlessconductis“generallytobeexpectedinhurlyburlyofdailylife”o Sexualactivitydoesnotfitinthiscategory

• Pdoesnotneedtoprovelackofconsent;DhasBOPofdemonstratingconsent

NORBERGVWYNRIB <vitiatedconsent>

Facts:• Paddictedtopainkillers,consensuallyperformssexualfavoursondocformore;Dchargedw/sexual

batteryRule:

• Consentisvitiatedinrelationshipsofpowerimbalanceandexploitation

CONSENTINTHESPORTINGCONTEXT

• Exampleofimpliedconsent• Personistakentohaveconsentedtotheordinaryrisksofasportinwhichtheyareengaged• However,“somelimitmustbeplacedonaplayer’simmunityfromliability”(AgarvCanning)

o Consentistotherisksofthesportconductedw/fairplay&goodtemper§ Notthesamethingastherules!Evenifrulesareviolated,ifsuchviolationiscommon,

andinaccordancewithfairplay,consentwillnothavebeenexceeded• Intentionalactstocauseseriousharmwillnotbeimmunizedasimpliedconsent

CHARLANDVCLOVERDALEMINORBASEBALLASSN <mutualconsent>

Facts:• Consensualfightbetween2fathersatchildren’speeweebaseballgame;1fatherallegingbattery,

assaultRule:

• Ifafightisproventobemutualorconsensual,partiescannotcomplainofinjuriessufferedduringthefightunlessforceusedwasexcessive,unnecessaryorofself-defence

CONSENTINTHEMEDICALCONTEXT

� Doctormustnottreatortouchapatientwithouttheirconsent,whichmustbereal,true&valid

45

� Personmayrefusetoacceptmedicaltreatmentevenifitresultsindeatho Doctorcannotprovidetreatmentagainstaperson’swill,howeverbeneficialitmightbe

� Ifapersoniscapableofgivingconsent,itmustbeobtained� NextofkinconsentisrelevantonlyifpatientisNOTcapableofgivingconsent(legislation-HCCAinBC)� Doctorscanrelyondefenceofnecessityinemergencysituations(Malette)� Consentmaybedoneexplicitly(verballyorinwriting)orimplicitlythroughbehaviourorpre-treatment

conversationso Ex.Patientcomingtodoctor’sofficefortreatmentimpliessomemeasureofconsenttobeing

examined,althoughapatientmayexpresslylimitthescopeofhisconsenttowhathappens

MALETTEVSHULMAN[1990]ONCA <advanceinstructions>

Facts:• P:Jehovah’sWitness,injuredincaraccident;D,doctor,awareofP’sJWstatus,whichforbidsblood

transfusion;diditanyways;PsuingforbatteryRule:

• Doctorisnotfreetodisregardadvanceinstructionsinanymorethathecandisregardinstructionsgivenatthetimeofemergency

• Doctorsmustnottreatpatientsw/oconsentunlessitisanemergency:1. Patientisunconsciousorw/ocapacitytomakeadecision2. Timeisoftheessence3. Underthecircumstances,RPwouldconsent&theprobabilitiesarethatthepatientwouldtoo

MARSHALLVCURRY[1933] <emergency>

Facts:• Testicleremovedduringherniaoperation;Pconsentedtoherniaop,nottesticleremoval;Dclaimsit

wasnecessary,matteroflifeordeathAnalysis:

• Impliedconsentinanemergencysituationappliedhere• Removalwasfoundtobenecessary–postponingremovalwasunreasonable

SELF-DEFENCE

• Completedefenceifestablished• SDisnodefenceiftheresponseisnotimmediateorproportionatetothethreat(Cockcroft)• Threatmustbereal,warrantingdefensiveaction(MacDonaldvHees)• Personneedstoretreatifpossible

46

REDDEMANNVMCEACHNIE[2005]BCSC

Facts:• R,mascotforCCJrHockeyClub,attendedgameasspectator;M,volunteerAss.Trainerforother

team,sittinginbenchinfrontofR;Rwasbangingadrum,makingitdifficultforMtohearcoach’sinstructions;MallegingR’sdrumstickstruckhimsohepulledRovertheglass,punchedRrepeatedly;

• RdeniesstrikingM,claimingbattery;Mallegingself-defenceRule

• SDisananswertoaclaimforassaultbutonlywhentheforceusedwasnotunreasonableinthecircumstances

• RighttostrikebackinSDproceedsfromnecessity:personassaultedhasarighttohitbackindefenceofhimself,hispropertyorhisway

o But,theyhavenorighttouseexcessiveforce–cannotstrikebackindefenceofhiswayifthereisawayaround

Holding:• Nofindingoftrespassorprovocation;eveniftherewas,assaultwasdisproportionatetojustifySD

PROVOCATION

• Anattempttoaccommodatehumannature:Lawrecognizesthatunderseverestressapersonmaybehaveinamannerthatwouldbeinexcusableinanyothercontext(Verigin)

KILLING

• Permissiblewherenecessarytopreserveone’slifeoravoidseriousinjury• Iftheassailedcandefendthemselvesthrough‘peacefulbutdistastefulmethodsofwithdrawingto

safety,’killinginSDisnotnecessary• Exception:indefenceofone’sownhouse,oneneednotretreatbeforethethreatofgrievousbodily

harm,thoughproportionalitystillexists

DEFENCEOF3RDPERSONS• Ifonedefendsanotherinthereasonablebeliefthatthepersonneedshelp,onemaybeexcusedfrom

tortliabilityeveniftheyareactingunderamistakenimpression• SDprinciplesapply

DEFENCEOFPROPERTY

• Trespassercannotbeforciblyrepelledorejecteduntilhehasbeenrequestedtoleavethepremisesandareasonableopportunityofdoingsopeacefullyhasbeenaffordedtohim(MacdonaldvHees)

BIRDVHOLBROOK <proportionality,notice>

Facts:• Dhasgardenw/rareflowersthatsomeoneisstealing;placesspringgunw/onoticetocatchthief;P’s

henescapesintoD’sgarden,goesintogetit,seriouslywoundedbygun

47

Issue:• Canapersonprotecttheirpropertywithviolentforcewithoutprovidingnotice?

Rule:• Useofforce,withoutwarningorthreatofforce,isnotjustifiedtopreventtrespass• Toraisedefencetoproperty,theactiontakenmustbeproportionatetothethreat

HARRISVWONG(SASK) <proportionality>

Facts:• 3youngmengotogetgasat5am,gasstationhas‘open’signoutfront,gasstationdoorhas‘closed’;

Papproachesdooraskingforgas,Drefuses;Pknocksagain,Dsticksrifleoutdoor;Prunsbacktocar• P2knocksondoor,knockingsignover;DhearssoundandshootsatP2’sfeet• Bulletricochets,shatterscarwindow;DthinksPsareB&Eing,shootsaain,hittingP• Totaketheshots,DopenedthedoorseparatinghimfromthePs

Rule:• Lawgivestherighttodefendoneselfagainsteitherathreatenedoranactualattackfromanother• RightofSDproceedsfromandislimitedbythenecessitytowardoffthedangerofsuchanattack• CommenceswhenthenecessityforsuchdefencebeginsandendswhenthenecessityforSDends• SD=defenceNOTcounter-attack;mustbereasonablyproportionatetothreat

NB:P’sNegligenceArgument

1. Dshotahigh-poweredriflebulletinanareainwhichheknewpeoplewerelocated2. DfailedtotakereasonablestepstoascertainwherePwaslocatedbeforeheshotthebullet;

alternatively,ifhedidknowthelocationofPbeforefiring,hefiredwithrecklessdisregardoftheP’slocation

3. Dfiredtheaforesaidshotinadirectioninwhichitwasnotsafetodoso4. Dusedagunwhichhewasincompetenttohandle5. Dfiredtheaforesaidshotontoasurfacefromwhichheknew,orshouldhaveknown,wouldcausethe

projectilefiredtoricochetinunknowndirections6. Dfiredtheriflew/recklessdisregardoftheconsequences,inallthecircumstancesobtaining

Holding:dutyyouowetoatrespasserisgroundedinthenotionthatyoucannotshowabsolutedisregardforlifeindefendingyourproperty

• Ownerofapropertyisunderadutynottoinjurethetrespasserwillfully

LEGALAUTHORITY

• Legislativeauthorityprovidesbasisforbehaviourthatwouldotherwisebetortious(ex.policeofficers)

Eachstatutorydefencemustbeanalysedinparticularcontextoflegislation,applyingprinciplesofstatutoryconstructionandtheCharter

48

NECESSITY

• Wheresuccessful,necessityisacompletedefencetowhatwouldotherwisebetrespassesorintentionaltorts

• Interferencew/privatepropertymaybejustifiedbynecessity• Elements:immediateurgencyoftheoccasion+dueregardtopublicsafety&convenience(Dwyer)• CentralQ:Underthecircumstances,isitjustifiedforonepartytoinvadetheprivatepropertyrightsof

another?

DWYERVSTAUNTON <trespasstoland>

Facts:• D’sbulldozerswentthroughP’spropertydespiteP’sprotest;Dclaimednecessity–hwywasblocked&

couldnotgetthroughanyotherway;Psuesfortrespass,claimingdamagestocrop,gates&injunctionRule:

• Travellerwhoislawfullyusingapublicroadhastherighttogouponprivatelandatplaceswherepublicwayisimpassible

• P’spropertyrightsshouldberespectedbutthereare“higher”rights–rightsofthepublico Though,rightsofthepublicmustbeexercisedinawaythatminimizesinfringement/extentof

damagetoprivatepropertyrights

VINCENTVLAKEERIETRANSPORTATIONCO <property>

Facts:• PsuingdamagecausedbyD’sshiptiedtoP’swharf;Darguingnecessity–violentstormmadethem

unabletomovevessel,requiredthemtotieittowharfRule:

• Ifactsofnecessitycausedamagetoanother’sproperty,eveniftheyactedasaprudentperson,theywillbeliable

• Necessityisstrictlyapplied:theremustbeimminentthreat&noreasonablealternatives

STRICTLIABILITY

Responsibilityw/ofault–ineachtort,lookforelementsthatreplacefault&justifytortliability

VICARIOUSLIABILITY

• Holdsonepersonresponsibleforthemisconductofanotherbecauseoftherelationshipbetweenthem(Sagaz)–employmentrelationshipmostcommon

ELEMENTS

1. Tortcommitted2. Tortfeasor&Dareinanemployer-likerelationship–lookforfactorsofcontrol3. Committedinthe‘courseandscopeofemployment’–Salmondtest

a. employeeactsauthorizedbytheemployerOR;

49

b. *unauthorizedactssoconnectedwithauthorizedactsthattheymayberegardedasmodesofanauthorizedact(althoughimproper)

*forintentionaltorts,applyBazleyvCurrytestPOLICYJUSTIFICATIONSFORVL

• Compensation–ifsomeonehastobealoser,itshouldbethepersonwhoemploys,putstrustinthedeceiver(HernvNichols)

• EnterpriseCausation–thepersonwhocreatesariskshouldbearthelosswhentheriskripensintoharm(BazleyvCurry)

• Deterrence–employersareinpositionstoreducenegligenceandintentionalwrongsbyefficientorganization&supervision

ONTARIOLTDVSAGAZINDUSTRIES <consultant>

Facts:• Sagazhiresconsultant,whobribesCdnTiretohireSasareplacementforPlaintiff;Psuingforlosses

Issue:• IsDvicariouslyliableforthebriberyschemeperpetratedbytheconsultant?

Rule:• Ifemployerhasmorecontrol,VLapplies;applyfunctionaltestforcontrol:(non-exhaustive)

o Provisionoftheirownequipment/workerso Degreeofresponsibilityformanagement&investmento Degreeofpersonalfinancialrisko Worker’sopportunityforprofit

Analysis/Holding• Consultantnotanemployee,butanindependentcontractor:

o Sdirectedprices/terms/conditionsbutAIMwasultimatelyincontrolofprovidingassistanceo Degreeoffinancialriskoropportunity,hiringitsownhelpersallshowthatAIMwasan

independentcontractorinbusinessonitsownaccounto Policyconsiderations:

§ VLprovidesajust&practicalremedytopeoplewhosufferharmasaconsequenceofwrongsperpetratedbyanemployee;faircompensation

§ Deterrenceoffutureharmasemployersareofteninpositiontoreduceaccidents&intentionalwrongsbyefficientorganization+supervision.

BAZLEYVCURRY <employee>

Facts:• Curry,apedophile,employedatChildren’sFdn,whoarecluelesstoC’spedostatus;Cconvictedof

sexuallyabusingB;Cdies;BsuesFdnforcompIssue:

• CanemployersbeVLfortheiremployees’sexualassaultsonclients/personswithintheircare?

50

Rule:• ChangesSalmond3bwhenatortisintentional–lookforwhetherthereis(1)asufficientconnection

betweenthecreationorenhancementofriskbythemodesofemploymentand(2)thewrongthatflowsfromthat

o Relevantfactorsmayinclude:§ Opportunitytheenterpriseaffordedemployeetoabusetheirpower;§ Extenttowhichthewrongfulactmayhavefurtheredtheemployer’saims(&hencebe

morelikelytohavebeencommittedbytheemployee);§ Extenttowhichthewrongfulactwasrelatedtofriction,confrontationorintimacy

inherentintheemployer’senterprise;(ex.bouncercreatesfrictionsometimes)§ Extentofpowerconferredontheemployeeinrelationtothevictim;§ Vulnerabilityofpotentialvictimstowrongfulexerciseoftheemployee’spower

Analysis:• Thefactthatthewrongoccurredduringworkinghours,oratjobsitedonotalonecreateVL• Employmentcreatedopportunityforintimateprivatecontrol,parentalrelationship&power–created

specialrelationshipthatcreatedtherisk(ofsexualassault),whichmaterialized• Abusewasinaresidentialcarehomewherethechildlives

JACOBIVGRIFFITHS <course&scope>

Facts:• D,PDofaboys/girlsclub,sexuallyassaultedP&otherchildren

Analysis:• Mereopportunityisnotenoughtomaterializetherisk• UnlikeBazley,enterprisewasondevelopingrelationships(horizontal,equal)amongmembers,not

relationshipstopersonsinauthority(vertical)• Clubwasofferingrecreationalactivitiesforchildrentobeenjoyedingroupsw/volunteers&members• AffordedDforslimopportunitiesforriskcreation–sexualabusewasfrom‘chainw/multiplelinks’

(ex.invitedchildrentohishome;authorized‘touching’ofchildwastobeonlyw/ireasonsofhisjob;nothingtodow/parenting,nurturingbeyondthatofanormaladult)

Holding:• Employerdidwhatareasonableemployeroughttohavedone;employeenotactinginC&Sofemp.

EBVORDEROFTHEOBLATESOFBC <course&scope>

Facts:• Schoolonveryisolatedislandw/hierarchalpower(knowntoconferrisksinabuseofpowerleadingto

VL);Dwasabakerinformallyworkingw/schoolRule:

• Toimposevicarious(asopposedtodirect)liabilityonanemployer,thelawrequiresastrongconnectionbetweenwhattheemployerwasaskingtheemployeetodoandthewrongfulconduct

51

Analysis/Holding:• Roleswerenotclear-cut;nostrongconnectionbetweenwhatschoolhadaskedbakertodo&the

wrongfulconduct• Mustdemonstratethattheschool-createdemploymentfeaturesoftheemploymentrelationshipof

theTFcontributedtotheabilityoftheTFtodowhathedid• NoVL

FOOTNOTECASES:

• KLBvBC:cantheministrybeVLWRTfosterparents?No,notanemp-likerelationship,nocontrol• EDGvHammer:younggirlabusedbyjanitor;noconnectionbetweenTOEandwhatheactuallydid

–employmentprovidedhimw/opportunitytodothisbutnoconnectionbetweentheriskthatwascreated&realized

• BlackwatervPint:wheremorethanoneemployerexercisessufficientcontrol,maybeheldjointlyVL

RYLANDSVFLETCHERRULE

Facts:• Dbuiltreservoirontheirlandcontaininghugeamountsofwater;throughnonegligence,water

overflows&floodsP’smineshaftsonadjoininglandRule:2approaches

1. (LordBlackburn)2requirementsa) Dbringsontohisland,collects&keepsthereanythinglikelytodomischiefifitescapesb) Itescapes

2. (LordCairns)2requirements:a) “Non-natural”useofland–hereitwasnon-natural–largequantityisnotnaturaluse

§ NNUiscontextspecific;dependsonordinaryusesofsocietyovertime§ Mustbesomespecialusebringingw/itincreaseddangertoothers,andmustnot

merelybetheordinaryuseofthelandorsuchuseasisproperforthegeneralbenefitofthecommunity

b) Escape–tosomeotherlandwheretherewasdamage§ Escapeisdifferentthancause;itistheliteralescapeontotheland

DEFENCES

1. ConsentofthePlaintiffo Appliessamewayitdoestootherintentionaltortsandnegligence

2. DefaultofthePlaintiffo Itissimilartocontributorynegligenceo SomethingthatthePdidthatcontributedtotheescape

3. ActofGodo Rarelyusedbutgooddefencetoescape;extraordinaryphenomenaofnaturewhichcannotbe

foreseen:“nohumanforesightcanprovideagainstandofwhichhumanprudenceisnotboundtorecognizethispossibility”

52

o NicholsvMarsland-floodingwasnotreasonablyanticipatedthatbrokeD’sdamtofloodP’sproperty

4. DeliberateActof3rdPersono IfaDcanprovethattheescapeinquestionwascausedbya3rdperson’sconsciousactof

volition(will),theDwillbeexemptedfromstrictliabilityo It’snotenoughthata3rdpersonunleashtheforcethatcausethedamage,itmustbe

donesodeliberately5. LegislativeAuthority

o Noliabilityincommonlawwheretheactisauthorizedbylegislatureo Theprincipleisthatiflegislatureswishtoimmunizecertainactivitiesforthepublicgood,they

shoulddosoexpresslyandprovideforalternativecompensationtothevictimsofthisexerciseofpublicpowers.

FIRES

OrdinaryusesoffirearenotsubjecttoRylands.Theyarestrictliabilitytortsbutarecontrolledbynegligence.Ifanon-ordinaryuseoffirecauseddamage,strictliabilityapplies.

ANIMALS

2groupsofdangerousanimals:

(1) Dangerousasagroup(feraenaturae)–ex:lions,zebras,etc.(2) Notdangerousasagroup(mansuetenaturae)–ex:dogs,cats

o ButIhaveknowledge(scienter)thatthisparticularmemberofthegroupisdangerouso Youmayhavescienterevenwhereadoghasnotbittensomeoneinthepast,ifhisbehavior

indicatesthatheisanaggressivedogcapableofdoingso(viciousormischevioustraits)o *here,evenwhereSLfails,youcanraiseclaiminnegligence

NUISANCE

Nuisanceexistswhenoneperson’suseoftheirpropertycausesanunreasonableinterferencewithsomeoneelse’suseandenjoymentoftheirownproperty.Actualdamagedoesnotneedtobeproved.WhatisreasonableisbasedonwhetheritwouldbetoleratedbytheordinaryuserintheP’sposition.

Theindividualclaimingnuisancemusthavepropertyinteresttobringtheclaim.(SutherlandvCanada)

PRIVATENUISANCE

• Whereexcessiveuseofpropertycausesinconveniencebeyondwhichoccupiersinthevicinitycouldreasonablybeexpectedtobear;havingregardfor:

o Severityoftheharmo Characteroftheneighbourhoodo Utilityoftheconductinquestiono WhetherPdisplayedabnormalsensitivityo Onlyaninterferenceneedstobeproved;noactualdamage

• Onlyinterferencesneedstobedemonstrated,notphysicalharm/damage

53

PUGLIESEETALVNATIONALCAPITAL <stormwater>

Facts:• GroundwatertablewassubstantiallyloweredbyD’sconstruction

Issue:• Diddrainingwatercauseunreasonableinterferencew/P’suse&enjoymentoftheland?

Rule/Analysis:• Yes,nuisance&negligencebothavailable• Nuisancedoesnotrequireafindingofnegligence(thatlandsusedwithoutreasonablecare);rather,

thattheinterferencewithR’srighttouseandenjoypropertywasunreasonable• Ifanoperationcannotbytheexerciseofreasonablecareandskillbepreventedfromcausinga

nuisance,thenitcannotlawfullybeundertakenunlessthereiseitherastatutoryauthorizationortheconsentofthoseinjured.

TOCKVSTJOHN’SMETROPOLITANBOARD <statauthoritydefence>

Facts:• Stormsewersfloodland,Tsaiditwasunnaturalcause

Rule:• Materialdamageisnotnecessarybutmakesitmorelikelythatcourtswillconcludetherehasbeenan

unreasonableinterferencewithuseandenjoymentofproperty• Interferencew/sensesmustnotbetheresultofabnormalsensitivityonthepartofP(standardsof

ordinarycomfortheldbythoseofplainandsobertastes)Analysis:

• Floodingwouldbeactionablenuisanceifthepartieshadbeentwoprivateindividuals• DifferentconsiderationsappliedbecauseDisamunicipality,abletorelyonthedefenceofstatutory

authorityo TheMunicipalitiesAct:authorizesDtoconstruct,operateandmaintainthesewagesystem,

confersapowerbutdoesnotimposeaduty;distinctionisrelevanttothequestionofrespondent'sliabilityinnuisance

DEFENCEOFSTATUTORYAUTHORITY:• Iflegislationconfersauthorityonapublicbody&givesitadiscretiononwhethertodoanauthorized

thing,howtodoit,andinwhatlocation,ifthePBdecidestodoit,itmustdoitinawaythatdoesnotcreateanuisance

o Ifitdoesgiverisetoanuisance,itwillbeliabletherefor,whetherthereisnegligenceornot

HEYESVVANCOUVER[2011] <statauthoritydefence>

Facts:• LossofbusinesswhilebuildingCanadalineonCambieSt.Bizownersacknowledgeditwasforthe

greatergoodofcitizens,butfelttheyshouldbecompensatedforlossofbusinessRule:

• Publicgoodvprivateindividuals

54

• WherethereisonlyonepracticallyfeasiblemethodofdoingsomethingwhichaDhasstatutoryauthoritytodo,thereisnoliabilityifitwaspracticallyimpossiblenottocauseanuisanceusingthatmethod

• Nuisancewasinevitableduringtheconstruction;citychosearatherdisruptivewaytobuild,&whiletherewerelessdisruptiveways,theyweremoreexpensive&notpractical

• Defenceapplies

ANTRIMTRUCKCENTREVONTARIO(TRANSPORTATION)[2013]SCC <unreasonableinterference>

Facts:• Pownedtruckstop;governmentbuiltnewsectionofhighwaywhicheffectivelyimpededaccessto

truckstop;PallegesnuisanceRule:

• Whenassessingreasonableness,focusisonthereasonableness(ornot)oftheinterferencesufferedbyP,notthereasonablenessofD’sconduct

o UtilityofD’sconductwillbeafactorindeterminingthereasonablenessofP’sinterference(“inallthecircumstances)”

• Qiswhetherthedamageflowingfromtheinterferenceshouldbeproperlyviewedasacostofrunningthesystem,thusbornebythepublicgenerally,oraninterferencethatshouldproperlybeacceptedbyanindividualaspartofthecostoflivinginorganisedsociety

FOOTNOTECASES:

• Nor-VideovOntarioHydro:PcablecosuingDreerectionofelectricaltransmissionslinescausinginterferencewithP’stransmission&signaltocustomers;

o Holding:Causeofinterferencesignificant;TVisanimportantincidentinmodernlife• HuntervCanaryWharf:buildingbuiltadjacenttobuildingPresidesininterferesw/hisTVreception

o Holding:merepresenceofabuildingw/osomethingmoredoesnotcompromiseanuisance;man’srighttobuildshouldnotberestrictedbyhisneighbour,butratherzoninglaws

• ApplebyvErieTobacco:odorscomingfromD’sfactoryinterferingw/P’senjoymentofpremises;o Holding:standardofcomfortforsensesisaquestionofdegree;here,D’sfactoryisanuisance

–odorscausematerialdiscomfort&annoyance,renderP’spremiseslessfitforordinarypurposesoflife

NB:Whenlookingatreasonablenessoftheinterference,considermotivevmalice(HollywoodSilverFoxFarm)