Term
|
Definition
| Snail in ginger beer manufactured by defendant caused plaintiff to become ill. Manufacturer owes a legal duty of care to ultimate consumer; neighbor principle - anyone closely affected by your actions that one ought to reasonably have them in contemplation you owe a duty to |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Cooper test:
1a. Was the harm reasonably foreseeable?
1b. Are the parties in a close enough relationship to ensure proximity such that it would be fair to add liability?
2.policy concerns which may negate the duty? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Reasonable foreseeability as a criterion for negligence: plaintiff who heard motorcycle crash and then saw blood on the ground had a stillborn. Not reasonably foreseeable enough for duty to be in place. You do not owe a duty to the world at large. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Ogopogo case: no liability from botched rescue attempt, no duty to rescue unless you make things worse. |
|
|
Term
| Jordan House LTF v. Menow and Honsberger |
|
Definition
| Operator of a hotel owes a duty to patrons that become intoxicated, safeguard patrons from harm on the way home. Not an onerous duty, put him up in the hotel, call po-po, call a cab |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| No social host liability to general public. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Mother liable for fire son set in apartment building as she had knowledge the son had proclivities for playing with matches |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Ice cream truck driver liable for little girls death, when she was hit by a car crossing the street to get to him. Dangerous situation/economic benefit. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Railway began self-imposed duty to lock gate. People depended on this, wasn't preformed, so liable. |
|
|
Term
| Jane Doe v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Commission |
|
Definition
| Police liable for failing to warn of serial rapist, statutory duty to prevent crime breached. |
|
|
Term
| Crocker v. Sundance Resort |
|
Definition
| Crocker, while inebriated, signs a waiver absolving liability, then goes in an inner tube down the hill and injures self. Waiver did not protect Crocker, liable as they created a dangerous situation for profit. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant's members of a cricket club which hit a ball that went over the fence, hitting plaintiff in the head 100 yards away. Not liable due to remote chance of risk, consequence's of being hit not grave. Reasonable men do not act on bare possibility of risk. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant was warned and had knowledge of possibility of fire to hayrick, decided to 'chance it'. Hayrick caught on fire, and damaged plaintiff's cottage. D liable as he did not act as a man of ordinary prudence would observe in similar circumstances. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Court held Malcolm's breached standard of care, even though they complied with custom. Always a duty to take reasonable care, regardless of custom. Custom itself was unreasonable. |
|
|
Term
| R. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool |
|
Definition
| Wheat Pool met standard of care, no negligence. Nothing to be gained from holding D who unwittingly breached a standard liable. Statute tells what standard should be, but breach isnot conclusive of a breach |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Youth standard of care:
Subjective: is particular child capable of negligence? (age, education level, level of intelligence, experience, alertness, general knowledge)
objective: was child negligent? to what degree?
What would a reasonable child of that particular age reasonably be expected to do an foresee under those particular circumstances? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Adult activity doctrine: two teenagers colliding on trail bike equally at fault |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Diagnosed schizophrenic has manic attack, injures others. Not liable as he was unable to provide/appreciate duty of care. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Heart attack, loses consciousness while driving and hits young boy. No negligence as negligence is a conscious act. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Doctor standard of care: held to the standard of care of another reasonably skilled member of the profession with the same specializations. More subjective, as held to standard of group. Not liable for errors in judgement, but crassa negligentia |
|
|
Term
| Wakelin v. London SW Ry co |
|
Definition
| onus of proof is on the plaintiff to show negligence, without evidence the death was caused by negligence there can be no case. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| but-for test is default rule for determining causation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Foreseeability is the effective test for liability |
|
|
Term
| Smith v. Leech Brain & Co |
|
Definition
| Man stuck by a piece of molten metal due to d's negligence gets cancer due to burn. Extent not foreseeable, but type was, so d liable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Man suffers mental disorder after seeing fly in water cooler. Not foreseeable that a person of reasonable fortitude would suffer from that injury. |
|
|
Term
| Corothers et al v. Slobodian et al |
|
Definition
| a women who sees an accident and goes to help recovers - courts like to encourage rescuers |
|
|
Term
| Wieland v. Cyril Carpets Ltd |
|
Definition
| women injured in bus accident due to negligence later injures herself at doctors office when she falls down stairs. Second injury foreseeable, she was acting reasonably, D liable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| doctor liable for not cutting child's cast, which made leg worsen, not original D which caused injury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Damage caused by negligence from plaintiff does not absolve defendant from liability if they breach that duty - bylaw which prohibits sticking hands out of windows on bus does not limit liability on bus driver. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Cutting off prong does not relieve manufacturers from liability, as it is known and common practice. |
|
|
Term
| Ives v, Clare Brothers et al. |
|
Definition
| Inspection does not relieve manufacturers of liability. Chain of causation not broken by inspection by different company; in this case equally negligent. |
|
|
Term
| Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. |
|
Definition
Unsafe implants. Manufacturer can absolve duty to warn consumer is it tells a learned intermediary, in this case did not.
Warnings must be clear, comprehensive, current, complete, and continuing |
|
|
Term
| Renaissance Leisure Group v. Fraser |
|
Definition
| to what extent did the plaintiff's conduct fall short of the standard of care of a reasonable person? If it falls short they are contributorily negligent |
|
|
Term
| Lagasse v. Rural Municipality of Ritchot |
|
Definition
| p plowing snow on lake, falls in. d claims it was voluntary assumption of risk, court holds this does not apply. Knowledge of risk is not enough, plaintiff must agree to waive any claims for negligence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| P drinking and driving, still allowed to recover civilly to recover and put him in the original position. |
|
|
Term
| Hedley Byrne & co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd |
|
Definition
Negligent misrep: special relationship
If a reasonable man knows he is being trusted with his information, he can keep his opinion silent, give an answer with clear qualifications he is not to be responsible for it, and simply answer the question. If doing the last thing, responsibility attached. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Five criteria for a successful negligent misrep claim:
1. Duty of care based on special relationship
2. Representation untrue, inaccurate, or misleading
3. Representor acted negligently in making said representations
4. Representee must have relied in reasonable manner on negligent misrepresentation
5. Reliance must be detrimental to the representee in the sense that damage resulted
Reliance = special relationship |
|
|
Term
| Hercules Management Ltd. v. Ernst & Young |
|
Definition
| Five indicia of reasonable reliance |
|
|
Term
| Whittingham v. Crease & co |
|
Definition
| d lawyer that produced will incorrectly, causing loss to d, even though d did not actively rely on p |
|
|
Term
| Winnipeg Condominium Corp no 36 v. Bird Construction Corp. |
|
Definition
| Contractor is liable if he constructs a building which is a real and substantial danger for the entirety of its useful life |
|
|
Term
| Canadian National Railway Co v. Norsk Pacific Steamship |
|
Definition
| Negligently towed barge hit bridge CN relies on, but does not own. Recovered for economic loss. |
|
|
Term
| Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd et al v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd |
|
Definition
| Relational economic loss only recoverable is special circumstances: claimant must have possessory interest, general average cases, joint venturer. |
|
|
