Torts Spring Summary Table of Contents INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE ..........................................................................................3 Dunsmore v Deshield (1977) – SK QB .......................................................................................... 4 Duty of Care ................................................................................................................................5 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] – HL General Duty of Care Test ...................................... 6 Anns v London Borough Council [1977] – HL ............................................................................... 7 Cooper v Hobart [2001] – SCC ....................................................................................................... 7 Modified Anns Test from Cooper .............................................................................................8 Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre and Douglas Baptiste v BD [2007] – SCC ...................... 9 Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] – NYCA .................................................................. 10 Breach of Duty (Standard of Care) ........................................................................................ 11 Arland v Taylor [1955] – Ont CA Reasonable Person Test ............................................... 11 Ryan v Victoria (City) [1999] – SCC Reasonability factors ............................................... 12 Vaughan v Munlove (1837) ............................................................................................................ 12 Roe v Minister of Health [1954] – CA Assessed at the time of the incident ................. 12 Bolton v Stone [1951] – HL ............................................................................................................ 12 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] – HL............................................................................ 13 Bingley v Morrison Fuels (2009) – CA ......................................................................................... 14 Bolton v Stone [1951] – HL ............................................................................................................ 14 Vaughn v Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission (1961) – NS SC ......................................... 14 Law Estate v Simcoe (1994) – BCSC .......................................................................................... 14 Bateman v Doiron (1991) – NBQB ............................................................................................... 14 De Vos v Robertson (2000) – Ont SCJ ........................................................................................ 14 Neill v New South Wales Fresh Food & Ice Pty Ltd (1963) – HCA ......................................... 15 Lovely v Kamloops (City) (2009) – BCSC; Aff’d (2010) BCCA................................................. 15 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] – EWCA................................................................ 15 Priestman v Colangelo (1959) – SCC .......................................................................................... 15 Burbank v Bolton (2007) – BCCA ................................................................................................. 15 United States v Carroll Towing Co (1947) Learned Hand Test ......................................... 16 SPECIAL STANDARDS OF CARE .......................................................................................... 17 Fiala v Cechmanek (2001) – Alta CA ........................................................................................... 17 Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] (UK).............................................................................................. 18 Mansfield v Weetabix [1998] (UK) ................................................................................................ 18 Joyal v Barsby (1965) ..................................................................................................................... 18 McEllistrum v Etches [1956]........................................................................................................... 18 White v Turner (1981) HC, aff’d 1982 ONCA .............................................................................. 19 Ter Neuzen v Korn (1995) SCC .................................................................................................... 19 Causation .................................................................................................................................. 19 But-For Test .............................................................................................................................. 20 Kauffman v Toronto Transit Commission (1959) – ONCA, aff’d [1960] SCC ........................ 20 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] – QB................. 21 Sam v Wilson (2007) – BCCA ....................................................................................................... 21 Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes [1959] – HL .............................................................. 21 Richard v CNR (1970) – PEI SC ................................................................................................... 21 1 Chester (Guardian ad litem of) v LeBlanc (2007) – BCSC ....................................................... 21 Exceptions to the But-For Test .............................................................................................. 22 1. Multiple Negligent Defendants Rule ................................................................................ 22 Cook v Lewis [1951] – SCC ........................................................................................................... 22 2. Informed Consent ................................................................................................................. 22 Hopp v Lepp [1980] – SCC; Reibl v Hughes [1980] – SCC ...................................................... 22 Recent Attempt to Modify the But-For Test .......................................................................... 22 1. Material Contribution to Risk Test ................................................................................... 22 HL essentially overturned LORD WILBERFORCE in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] ................................................................................................................................ 23 SCC in Snell limited the application of WILBERFORCE’s reverse of burden. .............. 23 Snell v Farrell [1990] – SCC [not strictly a material contribution to risk case, but comments on McGhee] ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] – HL .......................................................... 24 Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] – HL ............................................................................................ 24 2. Material Contribution to Injury Test ................................................................................. 24 Clements v Clements [2012] – SCC [also a case of tortious and non-tortious independent insufficient causes] .......................................................................................................................... 24 3. Proportionate Cause and Loss of Chance ..................................................................... 25 Sindell v Abbott Laboratories [1980] – Cal Sup Ct ..................................................................... 25 Multiple Causes........................................................................................................................ 26 Cook v Lewis [1951] – SCC Three categories of cases where Ds will be joint tortfeasors: ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Newcastle (Town) v Mattatall (1987) – NB QB ........................................................................... 27 1. Independent Insufficient Causes – but-for test is adequate ........................................ 27 Athey v Leonati [1996] – SCC [Multiple tortious and multiple non-tortious; also a case of material contribution to injury] ........................................................................................................ 28 Nowlan v Brunswick Construction Ltd (1972) – NBCA .............................................................. 29 Arneil v Paterson [1931] – HL ........................................................................................................ 29 Chapman v Hearse (1961) – HC Australia .................................................................................. 29 2. Independent Sufficient Causes ......................................................................................... 29 Penner v Mitchell (1978) – Alta CA............................................................................................... 30 Lambton v Mellish [1894] – simultaneous tortious causes; significant factor test ............. 30 Baker v Willoughby [1969] – HL – successive tortious causes; UK case endorsed by Canada in Penner .......................................................................................................................... 31 Remoteness .............................................................................................................................. 32 Two Perspectives about Remoteness ................................................................................... 32 Relationship Between Remoteness and DOC ...................................................................... 33 Relationship Between Remoteness and SOC ...................................................................... 33 Tests for Drawing the Remoteness Line............................................................................... 33 Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] – KB .................................................................... 33 Wagon Mound #1 [1961] – PC ...................................................................................................... 34 Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 v San Sebastien Ltd [1983] – NSW CA ................................................................................................... 34 Wagon Mound #2 [1967] – PC ...................................................................................................... 34 Assiniboine South School Division, No 3 v Greater Winnipeg Gas Co (1971) – Man CA; aff’d (1973) SCC .............................................................................................................................. 35 Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd [2008] – SCC .................................................................... 35 2 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] – HL .......................................................................................... 36 Tremain v Pike [1969] – ER Seems to go against HL in Hughes ................................... 36 Jolley v Sutton London BC [2000] – HL ....................................................................................... 36 Lauritzan v Barstead (1965) – Alta SC......................................................................................... 36 Trevison v Springman [1996] – BCSC ......................................................................................... 37 Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964] – EWCA ...................................................................... 37 Thin Skull Rule ......................................................................................................................... 38 Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] – QB Illustrates Thin Skull Rule (TSR) ..................... 38 Marconato v Franklin [1974] – BCSC ........................................................................................... 38 Swami v Lo [1980] – BCSC ........................................................................................................... 39 Gray v Cotic (1983) – SCC ............................................................................................................ 39 Kavanagh v Akhtar (1998) – NSW CA ......................................................................................... 39 Dredger Liesbosch v Steamship Edison [1993] – HL Thin wallet rule not recognized 39 Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica v Broderick [2000] – PC .................................................................. 39 Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] – EWCA ................................. 40 Intervening Act (Novus Actus Interveniens) ........................................................................ 40 Bradford v Kanellos (1973) – SCC Leading case for the novus actus test in Canada ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 Oke v Weide Transport Ltd (1963) – Man CA............................................................................. 41 Price v Milawski (1977) – Ont CA ................................................................................................. 41 Block v Martin [1951] – Alta SC..................................................................................................... 41 Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd [2009] – EWCA .................................................................. 41 Bourgoin v Leamington (Municipality) (2006) – Ont SCJ .......................................................... 42 Hewson v Red Deer (1976) – Alta TD .......................................................................................... 42 Tony v Bedwell [2002] – Alta QB .................................................................................................. 42 Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office [1970] – HL .............................................................................. 42 Lamb v London Borough Council of Camden [1981] – Eng CA ............................................... 43 INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE Negligence refers to the state of mind of the defendant, who must have been running an unreasonable risk that certain consequences would come about What constitutes a reasonable risk is assessed as a standard of care Unlike intentional torts, requires actual damage/loss It is a popular tort because intentional torts are more restrictive Similarities to nuisance: o Both stem from write of trespass on the case o Both require actual loss (i.e., not actionable per se) o Both involve question of reasonableness as between P and D Different meanings: o Negligence (entire tort) o negligence (carelessness, breach of duty of care, imposed an unreasonable risk of harm) o Also used in plain speech as a moral criticism of one’s character o Used in criminal law (criminal negligence = gross negligence) Short Summary of Negligence: “Did I, by virtue of my failing to take reasonable care, interfere with your legallyrecognized interest? Further, were you and these interests I interfered with the reason I should have taken care in the first place?” 3 Elements of Negligence P must establish all 5 on B. O. P: 1. Duty of Care o Was the D under a legal obligation to take care with respect to P’s interests? o If so, they owe a DOC to P o There’s a duty not to fail by virtue of not trying + not to injure by virtue of not to fail Can still cause injury and not be liable in negligence because you took care and tried o Was the harm a reasonably foreseeable consequence as a result of D’s conduct? o Donoghue v Stevenson: D has DOC to people who you might expect to be hurt by their negligent action o Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co 2. Standard of Care (breach of duty) [This is what P actually shows] o D is expected to act as a reasonable person would in the circumstances Reasonable people do not impose an unreasonable risk on someone Arland v Taylor o If acted unreasonable and it caused harm, acted negligently o What constitutes an unreasonable risk changes over time o (1) Probability of injury (2) Severity of injury o Bolton v Stone 3. Causation (factual causation) o But-for the breach/negligence, would the damage have happened? o Barnett v Chelsea Hospital 4. Remoteness (legal causation/legal proximity/proximate cause) o Connection from the breach to the damage P complained of o Is the right kind of damage caused? (e.g. man’s wife left because he lost toes - no) o If the damage that happens is the very kind of act that you had a duty to take care to avoid, there will be legal causation/connection won’t be too remote o Criminal principle: it’s not remote if there’s no intervening agent or force of nature 5. Damage o Negligence isn’t actionable per se o P has to establish that they suffered legally recognized damage o Clear: (1) Personal injury (physical and mental harm); (2) Property injury o Unclear: (1) Pure economic loss (historically not allowed, but there are exceptions); (2) Emotional setbacks (grief, sorrow); (3) Loss of autonomy Defenses D must prove on BOP Mostly have to do with P’s conduct Is there anything P did/could have done to mitigate liability? 1. Contributory negligence (almost has to show the 5 elements for P) 2. Voluntary assumption of risk 3. Illegality of action 4. Lapse of limitation period 5. Inevitable accident Dunsmore v Deshield (1977) – SK QB FACTS: P ordered special Hardex lenses that are more impact resistant than ordinary lenses. While playing touch football, P made contact with another player and injured his eye after the glasses shattered. Turns out the lenses were not Hardex. Neither the manufacturer (D1) nor the optometrist (D2) tested the lenses to ensure they were Hardex. 4 HELD: Ds were jointly and severally liable in negligence. REASONS: Duty of Care: The judge had no discussion about client-optometrist or buyermanufacturer relationships. However, the Ds should have had not only the person wearing the glasses in mind, but also the other people who would play sports with that person. Breach: J speaks of standard of care (hardness testing): (1) it is easy to do with a colmascope; (2) It is reasonable to test them because Ds admitted that sometimes mistakes happen in shipping – both Ds should have tested them (reasonable care) Causation: Ds argued that you couldn’t have proven Hardex wouldn’t have broken as well, saying the force of the collision was likely harder than the steel-ball test. J said the hard ball is very concentrated on the lens, whereas a collision is more diffuse. Further, P does not need to show this with certainty (only B.O.P.). What is true in science isn’t necessarily what is true in the law. Remoteness: P suffered physical injury playing touch football. D says it could happen to anyone wearing glasses (narrow argument). P described the risk as very broad. o P’s arguments: (1) Ds represented that P would be able to play contact sports like anyone else if he wore these glasses; (2) Why else would P have bought the lenses? They make those glasses so that people like P can play contact sports; (3) Thus, P’s situation falls within Ds’ described narrow risks o Ds’ arguments: Even if they had told P lenses were regular, he would have played anyways – his actions were novus actus interveniens The court outright rejects this – on B.O.P. he would not have played, and we know this from his conscientious and careful character Damage: Physical harm. o $7500 in general (not quantifiable) damages (loss of vision clearly from the accident because only the injured eye decreased in efficacy, can’t wear soft contact lenses anymore, impact on his work where he has to do a lot of reading). o $646.50 in special (quantifiable) damages (reflects lost time off work) Ds’ Defense: Contributory negligence played with glasses on. Ds needed to show that touch football is just as violent as tackle football and failed to do this. Court also said that P relied on Hardex, so it wasn’t unreasonable to play this game of football wearing them. o Usually, contributory negligence takes percentage of contribution and applies it to percentage of damages awarded Duty of Care Duty of care = to whom do I have a legal obligation not to act carelessly towards so as not to expose them to an unreasonable risk? (Remoteness= Risk to what?) (Standard of care=Kind of conduct that creates an unreasonable risk) History: At the early stages, the approach to DOC was conservative, cautious, and categorical Negligence law was restricted to precedent Not creating new law, rather applying to old law Come Donoghue v Stevenson, new rules were made. Suddenly, manufacturers were responsible for any customers that buy their products Donoghue cited Winterbottom v Wright 5 Winterbottom v Wright FACTS: P (postal worker) was injured because the cart wheel broke. Post office had a contract with D to keep the cart in a state of good functioning. P wanted to sue D. HELD: P can’t sue. The doctrine of privity applies (lack of a close and direct relationship that would come with rights and obligations) REASONS: Privity you cannot sue on the breach of contract owed to another DOC Analysis: Is there a pre-existing duty? If YES: Proceed to standard of care. If NO, do Cooper/Anns Test. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] – HL General DOC Test FACTS: Mrs. Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger beer. She drank most of it, and then the rest was poured out onto her ice cream, at which point she saw a partially-decomposed snail pour out. She suffered shock and gastroenteritis. Mrs. Donoghue (P) sued the manufacturer (D) in negligence. HELD: For P. REASONS: LORD ATKIN (maj): How do we get a connection from D to P, since there was an intervening party (the vendor)? The bottle was opaque, so the vendor could not have known. The principle of privity originally prevented D from being liable, but that must change. One must take care to avoid acts or omissions which are reasonably foreseeable to injure one’s neighbour. “Who then in law is my neighbour?” People who are so closely and directly affected by me [proximity requirement] that I ought reasonably to have in contemplation when I act. [general] o Also gives particular, already-established duties: doctor-patient, pharmacistpatient, innkeeper-guest Proximity is not confined to physical proximity, but also extends “to such close and direct relations that the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affected by his careless act.” Lord Esher in Heaven v Pender explained that in the case of sale of goods: “where it would be obvious to the person supplying, if he thoughts, that the goods would in all probability be used at once by such persons before a reasonable opportunity for discovering any defect which might exist…” Narrow Ratio: There was no reasonable possibility of intermediate inspection, it was sold in the same way it was shipped, there was an absence of reasonable care, and since it is a common household item, someone other than the purchaser may have used it (making whoever drinks it within D’s care) LORD BUCKMASTER (dis): There can be no special duty attaching to the manufacture of food apart from that implied by contract or imposed by statute. No court case stands for any alternative. He quotes a case with almost identical facts, but with a mouse instead of a decomposing snail. The Lord in that case said it would be outrageous to make distributors of goods liable for the contents of every single bottle. Ex Post Factum only after coming to court do you discover you had a legal duty NOTE: LORD ATKIN may have intended the narrow ratio, but courts subsequently interpreted it broadly, in assessing proximity by Lord Atkin’s neighbour explanation (including Cooper v Hobart, the leading Canadian case). Response to LORD BUCKMASTER’s criticism: the law already anticipated this (hence the list of duties already existing). We are just applying to it. 6 Anns v London Borough Council [1977] – HL FACTS: LBC was negligent in inspecting building plans. Anns’ building had inadequate foundation and the land subsided, causing property damage. HELD: For P. REASONS: LORD WILBERFORCE – Presumptive duty approach (plaintiff-friendly). Created a two-step test: 1. Ask whether as between D and P there is a sufficient degree of proximity or neighbourhood (Donoghue v Stevenson; proximity defined by reasonable foreseeability) such that in a reasonable contemplation of D, damage was foreseeable. This is a prima facie D.O.C. P has burden of proof If YES, move to #2 2. Are there any considerations which ought to negative/limit/reduce the scope of the duty owed? D has burden of proof NOTE: HL overturned Anns in Murphy (1991) because it was decided to be too open-ended, too plaintiff-friendly, and capricious. Australia also eliminated it, but Canada still uses it (Kamloops; Cooper) Cooper v Hobart [2001] – SCC FACTS: Eron Mortgage Corporation was a mortgage broker under the Mortgage Brokers Act. Cooper advanced $ to Eron. Eron’s mortgage license was suspended and they went out of business when it was discovered that they used $ of over 6000 investors for unauthorized purposes. Cooper alleged that Eron’s registrar breached a D.O.C. that it allegedly owed to her and other investors as it had been aware of the serious violations of the Act committed by Eron and did not suspend its license soon enough. Cooper was successful at trial. BCCA reversed. Cooper appeals. HELD: Appeal dismissed, no D.O.C. found. REASONS: MCLACHLIN CJ & MAJOR JJ: Anns test must apply. There are already many preestablished duty-invoking situations: A. D’s act foreseeably causes physical harm (extends to nervous shock – Alcock v Chief Constable) B. Government authorities who have undertaken a policy of road maintenance have been held to owe a D.O.C. to execute the maintenance in a non-negligent manner (Just v BC) C. Negligent misstatements (Hedley Byrne & Co) D. Duty to warn of risk of danger, if positive obligation to do so (Rivtow Marine Ltd) E. Municipalities have duty to ensure houses are constructed soundly and to inspect houses (Anns; Kamloops) F. Manufacturer-consumer (Donoghue; Dunsmore) This is not a type of negligence that can be likened to any other case as it deals only with pure economic loss. However, as there was insufficient proximity between Cooper and the registrar, there was no D.O.C. owed. Modified Anns Test: Step 1A: Was it a reasonably foreseeable consequence? o SCC: Yes. If the registrar allowed the mortgage broker to continue on with his/her actions, it is clear that the client (Cooper) would suffer a loss Step 1B: Was there sufficient proximity? o SCC: No. Must look at the statute under which the Registrar was appointed. The statute imposes no D.O.C. on the Registrar to investors with mortgage brokers 7 regulated by the Act. The Registrar’s duty is rather to the public as a whole. A duty to individual investors would actually conflict with the duty to the public. o This is the step at which the analysis fails in this case Step 2: Residual policy considerations as to why there should be no D.O.C. found? o SCC: No application, since no D.O.C. found. OBITER: Even if duty established, would have been negated for policy reasons. NOTES: When doing a D.O.C. analysis, always begin by seeing if the facts support using an already-established duty (exact same situation or analogous). Other pre-existing duties not mentioned in Cooper include parent-child, doctor-patient, and innkeeper-guest (Donoghue). Mustapha says that you do NOT need to do the 3 steps (1A, 1B, 2) if there is already a pre-existing duty Modified Anns Test from Cooper (for Novel DOC) 1. a. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE?* P has burden of proof A very low threshold In Anns and Kamloops, this is the entirety of step 1. In Cooper, it’s just a threshold question b. SUFFICIENTLY PROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP? (Internal/relational policy) Is the relationship between P and D sufficiently proximate to ground a DOC? P has burden of proof Look to the facts of each case in conjunction with the past jurisprudence. o How do the facts support proximity? Cooper: Look to the expectations, representations, reliance, and the property or other interests involved. If there is a governing statute, look to it to find these factors o When dealing with public authorities, both Cooper and Syl Apps say that the factors giving rise to proximity must be grounded in the governing statute when there is one. The statute is the relationship between the authority (D) and P The statute also delineates D’s duty The statute may immunize D as well (Syl Apps) The statute may also have its own remedial procedures (Syl Apps) 2. RESIDUAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS? (External policy) What is the effect of recognizing the duty on society more generally? What considerations support the limiting of DOC? In what circumstances is infringement reasonable? D has burden of proof D must raise some evidence; it can’t be speculative (Hill v Hamilton Wentworth) Examples of recognized residual policy reasons to negate a DOC (Cooper) o (1) Indeterminate liability Can be either that there (a) are many claims; or (b) is unquantifiable damage o (2) Alternative remedy o (3) Societal values and needs Dobson v Dobson Fetus injured by mother’s negligent driving. HELD: it’s not a societal value to have a child (unborn) sue its mother o (4) Administrative difficulty 8 Difficulty of proof, possibility of fraudulent claims, etc. o (5) Burden on taxpayers* o (6) Legislative and judicial independence* *Cooper concerns #5 and #6 How are 1B and 2 related? 1B – Unjust or unfair to hold D liable for a duty because of sufficient proximity “Micro-policy” Policy = relational policy confined to P and D 2 – “Macro-policy” Policy related to society as a whole Syl Apps the difference between proximity and residual policy is the relevant policy between two parties involved versus the effect of recognizing a D.O.C. on other legal obligations, legal system, and society at large. Cooper whether policy assessment occurs at step 1 or step 2 does not matter (But, Sinel says it does because the party that has the burden of proof is different). Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre and Douglas Baptiste v BD [2007] – SCC FACTS: 14-year-old girl picked up by child services and placed under the care of a treatment centre where Douglas Baptiste was her caseworker. Parents/siblings filed claim for $40M alleging that she was taken away from them and Baptiste essentially turned her against her family as if her parents actually sexually and physically abused her. TJ found for D (Syl Apps) after a motion was filed under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to have the statement of claim struck down on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable course of action. CA reversed. D appealed. HELD: Appeal allowed, for D. REASONS: For D.O.C. to exist between Baptiste/Syl Apps and the girl’s family, family must establish: 1. Reasonably foreseeable harm [YES] 2. Sufficient Proximity [NO] (A) The Act itself provides remedies for parents seeking to challenge way in which their children are treated. (B) Clear legislative intent to protect those working in child protection field from liability for the good faith exercise of statutory duty. Child’s interests are paramount. Statutory duty > parents’ claim for liability. Fails at this step (like Cooper) 3. No residual policy issues against finding duty [N/A] Imposing a D.O.C. for relationship between the family of a child in care and that child’s courtordered service provider creates a very real possibility of interfering with the service-provider’s statutory duty to promote best interests, protection, and well-being of children in their care. Conflict is inevitable in most cases of children being placed under state care. Further, the child is under medical-care, and conflicting duties would arise if medical practitioners had to disclose confidential information about their patients. NOTE: This case and Cooper fail because of the same micro-policy reason – conflicting duties where D is a public authority and its duties are defined by statute. Here, if D, whose principle obligation is to act in children’s best interests, were focused on parents’ interests, would be in violation of its primary obligation. While the statute does mention an obligation to parents, it also says that it cannot be in conflict with the primary obligation to children 9 o Might think this applies at step 2 of the analysis, but since the statute says there is a duty to the children, it cannot say that there is a duty to the parents. Thus, no duty is found to be able to move to step 2, and it may not even be a policy issue. In Cooper, D owed a duty to the public at large and could not have effectively discharged this duty if it was also focusing on P’s specific needs. Realistically, this could have been dealt with at step 2. Canada v UK In Canada, we follow Cooper. McLachlin CJ says “neighbourhood” principle from Donoghue conceals a balancing of interests. The quest for best interests = policy. In UK, Anns was overruled. Privy Council says if you establish 1A and 1B, it will be exceedingly rare to find policy reasons to negate the D.O.C. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] – NYCA FACTS: D (train employee) tried to boost a person onto the train to help him catch it, but the person’s package fell and exploded because he had fireworks inside. The explosion toppled luggage onto P (another patron on the platform). P sues D in negligence. HELD: For D. REASONS: D.O.C. described differently by the judges. CARDOZO – D.O.C. is relational (concept of the foreseeable plaintiff). o D’s conduct was negligent with respect to the man holding the package and not P, who was standing very far away. Negligence is the imposition of an unreasonable risk (Bolton v Stone). The concept of risk is relational – the very idea of what a risk is does not make sense unless we think in terms of to whom [duty] and of what [remoteness]. Duty in negligence = not to impose an unreasonable risk to another (also, therefore, relational). o The duty is personal and the wrong is personal and relational. Only if YOUR right has been injured do you have the right to sue. Thus, you owe a duty to all those who you can reasonably foresee would be injured by your actions. The risk here is that the man’s package might drop, NOT that it might contain explosives and explode. D owes no duty of care to P since D could not have known there were fireworks inside the luggage. o Risk imports relation an internal limit, limited by the relation you have with your surroundings and the people in it ANDREWS (dissent) – D.O.C. is practical politics, a balancing of best interests. o It doesn’t have to result in damage – the wrong is merely an imposition of risk (e.g., speeding down a street). It doesn’t have to be personal. o Duty = don’t act so that you might harm others. In the present case, D did act in this way. o The damage complained of is a proximate cause, similar to Scott v Shepherd. Where do we draw the line? Practical politics. o There is no internal limit, but rather it is arbitrary. o “Because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point.” o “It is all a question of expediency. There are no fixed rules to govern our judgment." NOTE: Canadian law seems to be a hybrid of the two standpoints. Everything can be boiled down to practical politics, but should the court impose liability because of it? 10 Breach of Duty (Standard of Care) REASONABLENESS This is both an objective and subjective test: Objective: o Impersonal, detached from the qualities of D o Reasonable person is free from over-apprehension and over-confidence o An external standard imposed on D o A fixed legal standard imposed on D Subjective: o Application of the standard to the facts of the case o Reasonableness changes based on facts and also time o Reasonableness is based on community standards, which changes over time What is wrong with the reasonable person test? Doesn’t describe anyone who has lived – difficult to imagine The test is not to put YOURSELF in the shoes of D (Arland v Taylor) Could introduce bias and instantiate the dominant class, gender, race, etc. (certain societal hierarchies) Correct to critique this but doesn’t mean that the test is invalid. Might very well determine reasonableness Doesn’t account for the intelligence of D (Vaughan v Munlove) Modern takes on past wrongs can be difficult – standards and practices change. Who’s to say that common practices at the time of the wrong were actually right and just, rather than merely everyone acquiescing to a popular behaviour? Might be asking tort law to do too much Mack v Canada addressed via statutory law Arland v Taylor [1955] – Ont CA Reasonable Person Test FACTS: P was in a car accident, said D was negligent. At trial, D found not to have breached DOC, P appealed. HELD: Appeal dismissed. REASONS: TJ did err in describing reasonableness assessment to the jury, but this error was not substantial enough to overrule TJs decision. He instructed the jury to think about what they would’ve done in the circumstances, however this is not the test. Reasonable person = a mythical creature of the law; a person of normal intelligence who makes prudence a guide to his/her conduct; whose conduct is guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs objective However, there is still a subjective element it is up to the judge to decide what a reasonable person would have had in contemplation under the circumstances and what the party sought to be made liable ought to have foreseen (Glasgow Corporation v Muir et al. [1943]) By instructing the jury to think what THEY would have done in that situation introduces bias, the facts having already been heard and the judge perhaps being influenced himself o Too subjective, internal, and variable 11 Ryan v Victoria (City) [1999] – SCC Reasonability factors FACTS: Appellant injured when thrown from his motorcycle while attempting to cross railway tracks running down centre of a street. Front tire became trapped in a gap alongside the inner edge of the tracks. He sued the City and railway companies. RATIO: Factors to weigh reasonability (since it varies with the facts of a case): 1. Likelihood of known or foreseeable harm 2. Gravity of the harm 3. Burden/cost that would have been incurred to avoid the injury You can also look to external indicators of reasonable conduct (custom, industry practice, statutory/regulatory standards). Vaughan v Munlove (1837) FACTS: P and D had adjacent property. D’s hayrick was close to the boundary of P’s property. Hayricks are known to ignite. D installed a chimney to supposedly make sure that didn’t happen. The hayrick ignited and destroyed much of P’s land. HELD: For P. REASONS: D tried to argue that the reasonableness standard shouldn’t apply because he tried his best/was prudent and shouldn’t be held to the standard since he isn’t that intelligent (judge me by me, not others). Court rejected this because if this was the standard then there would be no rule at all and the law would not be consistent since each individual is variable. Rules are NOT self-justified. Need justification for an objective standard of care. FIVE FACTORS TO DETERMINE WHAT AN UNREASONABLE RISK IS 1) PROBABILITY OF HARM How likely does an injury have to be for the defendant to take it into account when he/she acts (probability = P)? How severe is a resultant injury likely to be (loss = L)? Substantiality of risk = Probability x Loss Roe v Minister of Health [1954] – CA whether or not something is an unreasonable risk should be assessed at the time of the incident FACTS: D suffered spastic paraplegia after the anesthetic he received for a surgery was contaminated with phenol. Anesthetic was stored in vials which were placed in phenol for sterilization. Little cracks in the vial leaked phenol into the anesthetic. HELD: For D. REASONS: (DENNING) At the time of trial it was known that this was a possibility, but it was NOT known at the time of the incident in 1947. “We must not look at the 1947 accident with 1954 spectacles.” Bolton v Stone [1951] – HL This test will sometimes give different result from economic test. Economic test includes value of the activity to society. **Might need to argue why one is more appropriate for tort law. FACTS: P/respondent was walking on a residential road adjacent to a cricket club (D) when she was struck and injured by a cricket ball. HELD: Appeal allowed (for D/appellant). 12 REASONS: LORD REID – The matter cannot be decided on foreseeability alone. If it were, clearly would find for P since no matter how slight the risk it is clearly foreseeable that a cricket ball may be knocked out, hit someone, and injure that person. Degree of risk is also a factor. Reasonable people DO take into account the degree of risk and do not act in accordance with a small risk as if it were actually substantial (i.e., it is reasonable to keep playing cricket despite the small chance a passerby gets hit and injured). P x L = not substantial risk Reasonable people do not take substantial risks, but this is not one of those risks. It is a borderline decision, but LORD REID had to follow facts at trial which found that cricket ground was large enough to be considered safe. This test will sometimes give different result from economic test. Economic test includes value of the activity to society. **Might need to argue why one is more appropriate for tort law. 2) GRAVITY OF HARM (L, SEVERITY) Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] – HL FACTS: P, a man with only one working eye, worked in a steel factory where his job involved hammering steel. The factory issued no safety goggles to its workers. While hammering, a piece of steel hit his eye and blinded him fully. P unsuccessful at Court of Appeal + appealed to HL HELD: Appeal allowed (for P). REASONS: LORD OAKSEY (maj) – employers should have taken precautions and provided his one-eyed employee with goggles. Might not need to provide goggles to a two-eyed man because the chance of steel breaking off and striking the eye is slim and two-eyed men wouldn’t feel it necessary (wouldn’t be as injurious to a two-eyed man). Need to look at reasonableness given the facts of each situation. The probability (P) of loss is small. The loss (L) is severe for a one-eyed man – P x L = substantial However, no D.O.C. to a two-eyed man LORD MORTON (dis) – the employer owed the SAME DOC to one-eyed and two-eyed men to provide or not to provide goggles. He did not owe a duty to provide goggles because the risk was very slight (too remote – 6 minor eye injuries in 32 years). An employer would owe more precautions to a vulnerable employee than to a regular employee, but in this case, there was no greater risk of injury only a risk of greater injury. 13 Bingley v Morrison Fuels (2009) – CA FACTS: D company misread delivery ticket and went to P’s home to fill oil heating system with oil, but P’s system was not fit for oil. Caused $1 million in oil leak damage. TJ held that it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that an oil leak would happen from filling the tank. P appealed. HELD: For P. REASONS: The reasonable foreseeability goes to the wrong delivery. Harm from a mistaken delivery was reasonably foreseeable. 3) BURDEN OF TAKING PRECAUTIONS (B) P must establish that there was a reasonable alternative D could have taken Bolton v Stone [1951] – HL LORD REID: If substantial risk, no defence to say that the precaution was too costly. If a risk is small but real, and if you have a valid reason for doing it, you might be able to justify (but cost of precaution is still a consideration). //////////////////////////////////////////////// Vaughn v Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission (1961) – NSSC FACTS: D company painted a bridge and flecks of paint blew off it and into P’s car. P sued in negligence. D argued it took all necessary precautions to prevent injury from paint blowing and that it wasn’t careless. HELD: For P. REASONS: D could have posted notices, made press (radio) announcements, put men below in lots to warn people and/or help wipe cars. But D did not do any of these things and the cost of doing them would have been relatively inexpensive. NOTE: The case shows that not only can the high costs of taking precautions not exculpate you, but low costs can inculpate you. Law Estate v Simcoe (1994) – BCSC FACTS: P sued D doctors for not providing timely, appropriate, and skillful emergency care to her husband, who subsequently died. HELD: For P. REASONS: Despite doctors’ assertion that they felt constrained by BC doctor’s associations to use a CT scan as a diagnostic tool, a case like this warrants its use. A patient’s life is more important than financial strain on medicare system. Bateman v Doiron (1991) – NBQB FACTS: Moncton hospital had to grant privileges to GPs to fully staff its emergency room. This led to staffing with doctors who had limited skill. HELD: For D. REASONS: HOYT CJNB and ANGERS JA: It is true that some of the doctors who were staffing the emergency room were of limited skill, but expecting otherwise does not meet the test of reality. The hospital met the standard of care. RICA JA (dissent): Staffing and admin practices of the emergency department are unacceptable. De Vos v Robertson (2000) – Ont SCJ This case reiterated Law Estate in saying that budgetary constraints worked against P’s interests. The procedures followed may have worked for other patients, but not for this patient in particular. 14 HELD that the anesthetist breached D.O.C. (did not meet S.O.C.) Neill v New South Wales Fresh Food & Ice Pty Ltd (1963) – HCA FACTS: D employed P to wash out large cylindrical tank used to transport milk. P injured himself when he slipped and fell because the tank was slippery. TJ held for P, finding a breach. D appealed. HELD: For D. Appeal allowed. REASONS: P adduced no evidence of a practical alternative to cleaning the tank. Lovely v Kamloops (City) (2009) – BCSC; Aff’d (2010) BCCA FACTS: P fell while disposing of garbage at a transfer station and injured his leg so seriously that it had to be amputated. HELD: For P. REASONS: City breached D.O.C. because they didn’t install handrails and it would’ve been easy to do economically and practically. 4) SOCIAL UTILITY OF CONDUCT Mostly considered in cases involving public officers who have affirmative duties Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] – EWCA FACTS: Firefighter responded to an emergency call requiring the use of a special jack which had only been used once in the last 15 years. A special truck was needed to load the jack, but it was unavailable so the firefighter used a different vehicle. When the driver braked suddenly, the jack dislodged and seriously injured P. P claimed the employer (D) was negligent in: (1) failing to properly load the jack; (2) loading it in a way that made dislodging likely should the vehicle move; (3) permitting/causing P to ride on the back of the vehicle; (4) transporting the jack on a vehicle that was not equipped with straps; (5) failing to provide adequate supervision. HELD: For D (appeal dismissed). REASONS: DENNING – emergencies justify taking considerable risk. If it were a commercial business, definitely would be negligence. The associated risk with using the vehicle was not so great as to prohibit saving a life. Priestman v Colangelo (1959) – SCC FACTS: D police were in a high-speed chase. Shot at driver’s wheel to take it out, but the bullet ricocheted and hit a driver. The driver became unconscious and his vehicle collided with another, killing two pedestrians. HELD: For D. REASONS: Ds’ actions were justified because they were under an affirmative duty to apprehend the suspect protected by the Criminal Code. Burbank v Bolton (2007) – BCCA FACTS: RCMP officer (D) pursued what turned out to be an unlicensed 15-year-old driver impaired by methadone in a stolen car. Driver ran a stop sign in the chase and hit another car, killing 1 and injuring 4. HELD: For P. REASONS: Court found the driver 85% and the officer 15% responsible. This shouldn’t have been a chase and officer was charged with breaching D.O.C. NEWBURY JA (dissent) – this decision leaves little room for police pursuit in any circumstances. 15 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SOC United States v Carroll Towing Co (1947) Learned Hand Test FACTS: During WWII, a barge driver left his barge unattended at the dock and went to saloons and strip clubs. When he returned the next day, the barge had drifted and smashed into many other barges, causing a lot of damage. ISSUE: Was it unreasonable not to have a barge driver present all through the day? HELD: For P. D was negligent. REASONS: There is an economic test to negligence. (1) Probability (P); (2) Gravity of resulting injury (L); (3) Burden of adequate precautions (B). PL > B = negligence PL < B = no negligence In this case, the burden of watching a barge during wartime was less than the probability/severity NOTE: L. HAND did not intend for this formula to arise, but Posner says that it was latent in his decision. Now in the US, this analysis is always represented in monetary values. Posner says that we as a society do not like when people squander money. POSNER: “A Theory of Negligence” L. Hand’s test: When the cost of accidents is less than the cost of prevention (PL < B), a rational profitmaximizing enterprise will pay tort judgments to the accident victims rather than incur the larger cost of avoiding liability o Overall economic welfare would be diminished rather than increased by incurring a higher accident-prevention cost in order to avoid a lower accident cost When the benefits in accident avoidance exceed the costs of prevention (PL > B), society is better off if those costs are incurred and the accident averted o In this case the enterprise is made liable, in the expectation that self-interest will lead it to adopt the precautions in order to avoid a greater cost in tort judgments The Hand formula doesn’t explicitly include consideration of the victim mitigating loss, but it is implicit in the demonstration of the negligence standard Since we don’t like to squander resources, a judgment of negligence has inescapable overtones of moral disapproval, for it implies that there was a cheaper alternative to the accident o Conversely, there is no moral indignation when the cost of prevention would have exceeded the cost of the accident – no reason to condemn when costs to avoid an accident would have consumed excessive resources Criticisms of the Economic Approach Tort law is not about making everyone happy, it’s about compensating a wronged individual People say that non-economic negligence would be hard to assess, but you can assign numbers to anything Courts are bad at these types of assessments This analysis reflects norms of economic efficiency, tending to maximize wealth and minimize costs, by encouraging cost-justified accident prevention while discouraging excessive investment in safety Negligence is not just a matter of calculating the pint at which the cost of injury to victims exceeds that of providing safety precautions Lord Reid Test 16 See Bolton v Stone Economic analysis is only used for foreseeable, real, and small risks. SPECIAL STANDARDS OF CARE A. Physically Disabled How would a reasonable person with a similar disability act? SOC=that of a reasonable person with a similar disability B. Mentally Disabled Fiala v Cechmanek (2001) – Alta CA FACTS: Undiagnosed bi-polar man went for a run and had his first ever manic episode. He jumped on a car and got into the car, choking the occupant, Cechmanek (respondent). Cechmanek involuntarily accelerated and her car crashed into Fiala’s (appellant) car, injuring her and her daughter. ISSUE: Should he be held liable for his actions? HELD: He did not act voluntarily or with capacity, and cannot be held liable. REASONS: In order to avoid liability in negligence, D must prove on a BOP one of the following: 1. As a result of mental illness, D had no capacity to understand/appreciate the DOC 2. As a result of mental illness, D was unable to discharge a DOC as he had no meaningful control over his actions at the time SEE CHART ON NEXT PAGE Buckley: thought he was being remote-controlled by aliens If you have volition and capacity, you will be held to a regular SOC Pro-Objective SOC 1. Tort law is about compensation for the injured party Pro-Subjective SOC 1. First need to determine if there was a wrong – unfair to impose liability on someone morally innocent 2. Practical difficulties in determining mental 2. Significant advancements in health and illness/capacity/volition mental illness allow us to know who is faking. Potential for feigning mental illness Also need to treat it like physical illness to reduce the stigma. 3. Would incentivize caregivers to take better 3. That would make caregiving a less viable care of mentally disabled people profession. Also, why sue indirectly through caregivers when you can sue them directly? 4. Erodes the objective standard 4. We already make exceptions (children, physically disabled) and the objective SOC still stands. 5. Reinforces stereotypes about people with 5. Holding people liable in this was effectively mental illness being dangerous and needing creates a regime of strict liability we don’t to be isolated want fault to be irrelevant Must prove that it happened suddenly and without warning + lack or volition or capacity The plaintiff claimed that there should be an objective S.O.C. analysis for mentally ill just like others, but the Court decided more along the lines of a subjective one. NOTE: This case appears to suggest that there is no lowered SOC for the mentally ill – SOC is not at issue. Rather, they must be shown to lack volition/capacity. 17 American Law Institute Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm Mental state is not relevant when determining whether conduct is negligent (i.e., for the SOC), except for children. Reinforces that mentally disabled not liable due to volition/capacity. Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] (UK) FACTS: D has series of strokes and then begins driving and has more strokes while driving, causing an accident. HELD: Liable. REASON: Not morally to blame, but liable nonetheless. NOTE: Compared to Fiala, maybe liable because he had both volition and capacity. Mansfield v Weetabix [1998] (UK) FACTS: D was a Type 1 Diabetic who didn’t take care of his blood sugar level, causing it to drop while he was driving and he got into an accident. HELD: Not liable (oddly). REASON: Not taking account of driver’s condition would be to impose strict liability. NOTE: Shocking decision – in Canada, Type 1 Diabetics below glycemic level are considered inebriated as if they were drunk and must monitor their levels. C. Children Under 5 = assumed to be incapable of negligence - American Restatement o No capacity, so no negligence SOC for older children=person of similar age, intelligence, and experience In between ages=modified objective standard Joyal v Barsby (1965) FACTS: With cars oncoming, a 6-year-old girl was starting to cross a highway when a car honked at her. She ran out into the road anyways and hit the side of the car. The driver was deemed to be negligent, but the question was whether the girl was contributorily negligent. HELD: Girl behaved reasonably. REASON: The girl was of average intelligence or just below. She had experience crossing highways – her father had told her before to be careful and look both ways. She lived in the country and had experience crossing highways. Adult vs. Childish Activities McEllistrum v Etches [1956] HELD: There is an age below which a child cannot be held liable in negligence. Further, the test is whether a child exercised the care as would a child of like age, intelligence, and experience. The reasonable child standard applies EXCEPT when a child is doing an adult activity o E.g., driving, snowmobiling, hunting What is the rationale for this? o Leading rationale: If you’re doing an adult activity the public assumes you’re an adult o Look at the relationship between P and D When it’s 2 children (e.g., McHale v Watson – 12 year old threw sharpened rock at post and girl lost eye) and one injures the other while doing a child’s activity, one wouldn’t need to meet an adult SOC 18 When the D is a child and P an adult, it is unfair between the parties to hold the child responsible only as a child when the activity is clearly an adult activity. Parental/Guardian/Supervisor’s Responsibility o Usually, no vicarious liability for children’s wrongs o However, can be liable through negligent supervision Common law Mainly governed by statutes: ON Parental Supervision Act defines a responsible parent using a SOC analysis What about the elderly? No modifications for the very old held to the standard of a reasonable person D. Professionals Meet the SOC that your reasonable colleagues would meet However, breach of standard of care is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish negligence White v Turner (1981) HC, aff’d 1982 ONCA FACTS: D (plastic surgeon) performed a breast reduction on P but took off more skin than tissue and when D was closing P back up, it was too tight and resulted in deformed breasts. HELD: Liable. REASONS: After hearing experts, found that D deviated from the customs of the practice (one indicator of negligence). The surgeon performed the procedure too quickly and failed to perform standard check. Ter Neuzen v Korn (1995) SCC FACTS: P contracted HIV via artificial insemination. ISSUE: Did D breach SOC in failing to check the semen for HIV? P was concerned that there was no standard practice for this. HELD: No negligence. Not up to the judge to decide if it should be a standard practice. NO NEW TRIAL to determine if checking semen for HIV is necessary (because deemed not to be), BUT new trial to determine if checking semen for STDs in general is necessary. RULE FOR QUESTIONING A CUSTOM: “Where a procedure involves difficult or uncertain questions of medical treatment or complex, scientific or highly technical matters that are beyond the ordinary experience and understanding of a judge or jury, it will not be open to find a standard medical practice negligent.” EXCEPTION TO CUSTOM: When D fails to adopt obvious/reasonable precautions readily observable to an ordinary reasonable person. Causation (AKA Factual Causation) The standard test for factual causation is the but-for test: Based on the facts, can P prove on balance of probabilities that D’s breach of the SOC was a cause of P’s loss? “Cause-in-fact” test Causation = the link between D’s breach of SOC and P’s loss P can only complain of injuries that resulted from D’s wrong – makes sense since D only responsible for damage he/she caused Each of P’s individual injuries must be analyzed in terms of causation “Divisible loss” = a loss that can be attributed to the conduct of a single tortfeasor 19 (1) Single cause approach (2) Should be defined narrowly (3) If each divisible loss is readily attributable to the conduct of a single tortfeasor, P will have separate cause of action against each tortfeasor and the but-for test of causation, subject to any relevant modifications, will apply “Indivisible loss” = a loss that can be attributed to the conduct of more than one tortfeasor (1) Multiple cause approach Series of distinct injuries occurring in rapid succession typically considered one loss (e.g., multiple whiplash injuries from a car crash) Does not have to be the sole, immediate, direct, or most important cause of injury – sufficient that D’s negligent act was a cause Sometimes the balance of probabilities adjusted to achieve public policy goals Sometimes hard to distinguish from remoteness PRESENT STATE OF LAW IN CANADA (MCLACHLIN in Clements v Clements): (1) As a general rule, P cannot succeed unless she shows as a matter of fact that she would not have suffered the loss “but for” the negligent act or acts of D. TJ must take a robust and pragmatic approach to determining if P has established that D’s negligence caused her loss. Scientific proof of causation is NOT required. (2) Exceptionally, P may succeed by showing that D’s conduct materially contributed to risk of P’s injury, where (a) P has established that her loss would not have occurred “but for” the negligence of 2+ tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) P, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary “but for” cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible “but for” cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone. But-For Test If P’s injury would not have occurred but-for D’s negligent act, then that act is a cause of the injury D’s negligence was “causally effective” – it was necessary P needs to demonstrate causation on a balance of probabilities. o Don’t need scientific proof o Common sense o Relatively little evidence required Means that a judge can infer causation; don’t need expert testimony Has been criticized for absurd hypotheticals Kauffman v Toronto Transit Commission (1959) – ONCA, aff’d [1960] SCC Relation between SOC and causation FACTS: P ascending on escalator at subway station. Youths ahead of her were scuffling, knocking down the man in front of her and in turn having the crowd of two or three fall on her. She suffered severe and permanent injuries. She alleges that D was negligent in not providing rubber coverings on handrails as is common practice [breach], thus not allowing her to properly grip the handrail and hold herself up. Trial judge found for P. D appealed. HELD: Appeal allowed; for D. REASONS: There was no evidence that: The youths or man in front of P attempted to grab the railing and failed 20 P would not have fallen had she been able to grasp the rail P tried to grab the handrail The type of railing was a contributing cause to the accident. NOTE: Shows how influential standard of care is to causation/damage. Maybe if P’s lawyer framed it as TTC needing to provide a security guard or make announcements against roughhousing it would be at least plausibly connected to her injury. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] QB FACTS: P’s poisoned with arsenic. They got to the hospital (D) at 8am. Doctor sent them home. One of them died at 1pm from enzyme disruption. P alleges D was negligent in its treatment. ISSUE: Was D’s breach (8am) causally connected to P’s death? (Was there factual causation?) HELD: No; for D. REASONS: Fails but-for test. Even if D didn’t breach the standard of care, he wouldn’t have been able to treat P until 12:30. It was found that he would have needed to treat him by 12 to prevent death. If he had done everything right, P still would have died. Thus, there’s no causation. NOTE: If the breach were framed as the hospital failing to have staff ready, P might have won. Sam v Wilson (2007) BCCA HELD: Negligent monitoring of liver function was not proven to be a cause of P’s liver disease. Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes [1959] HL FACTS: Experienced foundry worker injured when molten metal splashed on his feet. Wouldn’t have been injured had he worn protective clothing. Employer provided protected clothing but did not advise him to use them nor did the worker ask. When he recuperated, the worker continued not to use the spats. HELD: For D. REASONS: D did not breach the standard of care in providing the worker with protective equipment. However, even if the standard was breached, D’s action would not have been a cause because he would not have worn them anyway. The worked would have chosen not to wear it anyway. No causation. NOTE: Sinel says that now, it would be found that they breached standard of care. Richard v CNR (1970) PEI SC FACTS: P was asleep in car aboard a ferry. Heard someone say “we’re here!” and, thinking the attendant made the statement, proceeded to back his car off the ferry into Gulf of St. Lawrence. P alleged that among other things, D was negligent in untying the safety rope too soon. HELD: For D. REASONS: The “sole, direct, proximate and effective cause” of the accident was P’s rash act of backing off the ferry, contrary to warning signs and the crew’s attempt to stop him. Even if they had left it tied, P still would have ended up in the water – not causally connected. What caused him to drive off was someone yelling “we’re here” – NOT the rope being untied. NOTE: Like in Barnett and Kauffman, had the SOC been described differently, the outcome may have been different. Here, P’s lawyer should have argued that the barrier should have been more than a piece of rope. Chester (Guardian ad litem of) v LeBlanc (2007) – BCSC Lawyer’s negligent preparation for mediation not a cause of P’s agreeing to an unfavourable settlement. 21 Exceptions to the But-For Test Most widely-accepted modifications involve limited exceptions that apply to relatively narrow categories of cases Each exception addresses a specific perceived unfairness that would result from applying the but-for test 1. Multiple negligent defendants rule 2. Objective/subjective test in informed consent cases 1. Multiple Negligent Defendants Rule Cook v Lewis [1951] – SCC FACTS: D (Cook) and Akenhead were hunting and shot at a grouse. P (Lewis) emerged from the bushes screaming because he was shot and lost an eye. D and Akenhead both denied firing in P’s direction. P could not prove on balance of probabilities which hunter had shot him. BLL: Burden of proof to establish causation would shift from P to D if P could establish that: 1. Both Ds were negligent 2. One had to have caused the loss 3. It’s impossible to prove which D caused loss Each D found to have negligently caused loss unless he could disprove causation on the balance of probabilities You can’t have 51% required on balance of probabilities because there’s a 50% chance for each one of them Court not sympathetic to this idea (shouldn’t benefit from collective wrongdoing) NOTE: Court held that the multiple negligent defendants rule only applied to cases involving two negligent defendants. UK and American courts have applied a version of this involving more than two. (e.g. Clements v Clements (2012) SCC this principle, albeit framed in different terms, is not limited to cases involving only two negligent defendants.) 2. Informed Consent Hopp v Lepp [1980] – SCC; Reibl v Hughes [1980] – SCC Healthcare professionals have a duty to put patients in a position to make informed decisions about whether to consent to proposed treatment Objective/subjective test of causation whether a reasonable person in P’s position would have consented if he/she had been adequately informed o Pro-defendant test Rejected standard subjective causation test because disgruntled patients would provide self-serving evidence (i.e., wouldn’t have had the treatment) Recent Attempts to Modify the But-For Test 1. Material Contribution to Risk (MCR) Test 2. Material Contribution to Injury (MCI) Test 3. Proportionate Cause and Loss of Chance Test 1. Material Contribution to Risk Test *Sinel: this has never been applied in Canada but is not bad law. McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] HL MCR; Wilberforce’s judgment overturned in Wilsher 22 FACTS: P worked cleaning out D’s brick kiln. D did not provide showers, so P had to bike home filthy (which also may have contributed to the dustiness). P developed dermatitis and sued D. HELD: For P. REASONS (L. REID, SIMON, SALMON, and KILBRANDON): Thoufgh unable to determine if absence of showers was more likely than not to have caused P’s condition, D’s failure to provide showers materially increased the risk of developing dermatitis and that injury actually occurred. Thus, D is a cause. L. WILBERFORCE: P need only prove D created a risk of harm and injury occurred within this area of risk. Burden of proving causation should shift to D in these circumstances who must then disprove causation on balance of probabilities. Limited this principle to cases in which sound policy warranted making an exception to standard test for causation. NOTE: Canadian courts have adopted WILBERFORCE’s minority approach and have often applied it well beyond the confines of workplace health + safety and rarely refer to any policy considerations. HL essentially overturned WILBERFORCE in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] SCC in Snell limited the application of WILBERFORCE’s reverse of burden. Snell v Farrell [1990] – SCC Not strictly an MCR case, but comments on McGhee FACTS: Dr. Farrell performed cataract operation on P. Noticed discolouration after injecting the anaesthetic, waited, then continued. P ended up blind in that eye. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: Experts at trial could not say for sure what caused the blindness or when damage occurred. Trial judge found D liable on basis of McGhee – P established prima facie case for causation and burden shifted to D to disprove it, which he could not do. Court of Appeal dismissed appeal. ISSUE: Potential tortious cause AND potential non-tortious cause. Damage could have occurred naturally OR because of the operation HELD: Appeal dismissed; for P. REASONS: Allocation of burden of proof is not immutable. In the circumstances of McGhee, Canadian courts have accepted that an inference of causation is warranted in that there is no practical difference between materially contributing to the risk of harm and materially contributing to the harm itself. Here, if D was escaping liability because P could not prove causation, would apply McGhee by shifting burden of proof. That only applies where the D is in a better position to know the cause of injury than P (not the case here). The principles relating to causation are adequate here. The trial judge was wrong to reverse the burden of proof in a case such as this where the injury may have been caused by factors unconnected to D and not the fault of anyone. Need a robust and pragmatic approach to the facts. Burden is with P, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary adduced by D, an inference of causation may be drawn although positive/scientific proof of causation has not been adduced Not necessary for medical experts to provide a firm opinion supporting P’s theory – medical doctors are reluctant to express opinion unless 100% certain, but in law it is 51% D was negligent in continuing the operation and doing so greatly increased P’s risk o More likely than not caused the harm even though it could’ve been caused naturally by stroke SUMMARY: Reverse burden of proof where: 1. D is in a better position to know the cause of injury than P 2. Multiple Defendants Don’t want D to profit off rules of evidence – must compensate P Need to know which D because the chance of being wrong that someone was negligent in a case of 1 D is only 49% 23 But if there are 2 Ds, could be 100% wrong if both are excused. We need the chance of being wrong to go back to 49% by shifting the burden (this mathematical analysis wouldn’t work with 3+ Ds) 3. WILBERFORCE in McGhee – D negligently materially increased risk and risk occurred Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] – HL Multiple tortious causes FACTS: P contracted mesothelioma (occurs when asbestos inhaled). P exposed to asbestos over the course of many years of employment with different employers, and thus could not determine which employer was responsible. HELD: For P. All employers held jointly and severally liable. REASONS: Reinterpreted L.REID in McGhee A breach of duty which materially increased the risk should be treated as if it had materially contributed to the disease. Each employer increased the risk of injury. Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] – HL Multiple tortious causes + one non-tortious cause FACTS: The deceased was exposed to asbestos while employed by two companies and while self-employed (a non-tortious cause). HELD: For P; didn’t get complete compensation REASONS: Distinguished from Fairchild because his mesothelioma could have resulted from non-tortious exposure to asbestos (self-employment). Thus, D company (Barker) only liable for its proportionate share of the risk that it created (rather than joint and several liability ‘proportionate share liability’) NOTE: Overturned by an amendment to the Compensation Act 2006 that makes tortfeasors in mesothelioma cases jointly and severally liable – no more contributory negligence in those cases. Everyone who got mesothelioma gets full compensation. 2. Material Contribution to Injury Test Sinel: A truism about torts and cause-and-effect – D’s carelessness need not be the sole or sufficient cause. Thus, MCI test is just an application of the but-for test Clements v Clements [2012] SCC Tortious + non-tortious independent insufficient causes FACTS: P was a passenger on D (her husband)’s motorcycle. D was driving 20 km/h over speed limit while passing a car in wet weather and 100 pounds overloaded. Nail had punctured the rear tire unbeknownst to D and while passing the car it fell out, tire deflated, and they crashed. Trial judge found for P – but-for not satisfied because of limitations in crash reconstruction, but applied MCR test. Court of Appeal overturned because but-for not satisfied. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: Trial judge applied MCR, said it’s an alternative to but-for. WRONG HELD: Appeal dismissed. For D. MCR does not apply because there is only one tortious actor. REASONS (MCLACHLIN): Trial judge was wrong to apply the MCR test. It isn’t really a test for causation, but rather a policy-driven rule of law designed to allow P to recover in such cases despite their failure to demonstrate causation. Ps are allowed to jump the evidentiary gap between breach and damage. D in an action for negligence is not a wrongdoer at large, but rather a wrongdoer only in respect of the damage which he actually causes to P. Thus, the approach is rare and only applied when fairness is required and it conforms to principles that ground recovery in tort. Need to distinguish between true impossibility of factual proof (where MCR test would apply) and situations where P simply fails to meet burden Trial judge relied on “scientific impossibility,” but this is not the standard – Snell makes clear that scientific evidence of causation is not required 24 Impossibility ≠ logically/conceptually/factually/scientifically impossible What Does Impossibility Mean? MCR test applies typically where there are multiple tortfeasors where all are at fault and one or more has caused P’s injury o e.g. Cook v Lewis or cases of multiple-employer mesothelioma cases Impossibility = P has established that but-for the negligence of multiple people, they would not have been injured (global application of but-for), but no balance of probabilities can be established against any one individual. o This is not a logical or factual (i.e., failing to meet the burden) impossibility. Note: This true impossibility was seen in Cook v Lewis, mesothelioma cases, and Sindell. o MCR test is consistent with corrective justice the deficit that would exist in the relationship between P and Ds viewed as a group if P were denied recovery is corrected In UK, Courts have applied this test to a single tortfeasor in a case of mesothelioma where but-for was impossible (Sienkiewicz), but the SCC does not find it appropriate in Canada The but-for test must be applied in a robust, common-sense fashion only in the above circumstances should it be discarded in favour of the MCR test In the present case, they needed to examine all the contributing factors. All tortious factors will contribute in the MCI test. Here: two tortious causes, two non-tortious Speed Tort Weight/Overloading Tort Nail No tort Rain No tort Must ask: but-for the two tortious causes, would the accident have happened? (From class) MCLACHLIN summary: General rule is P can’t succeed unless they show butfor causation. This should be applied in a robust and pragmatic manner and doesn’t require scientific test. Need multiple tortfeasers, each of whom is possibly responsible, for MCR test to apply. P must show through no fault of her own that one of the possible tortfeasers is in fact the necessary cause of her injury. Athey v Leonati (below) is also a material contribution to injury case. Don’t have to establish that the D was the sole cause 3. Proportionate Cause and Loss of Chance Sindell v Abbott Laboratories [1980] – Cal Sup Ct Multiple tortious causes FACTS: P developed deadly cancer caused by drug called DES which her mother had taken while pregnant. About 200 pharmaceutical companies produced it and it was a generic pill with no markings. Many similar complaints were filed. HELD: For P; D’s jointly and severally liable for negligence based on their individual market share. REASONS: Though P couldn’t prove which company produced the drug her mother took, all companies negligent in marketing DES because they knew or ought to have known of its risks. Canada has not adopted the approach from Sindell for injuries occurring before trial 25 However, Canadian courts have adopted a different standard of proof for losses that may occur after trial o If P can establish a substantial or reasonable possibility that D’s negligence will cause a future loss, P can recover for a percentage of that loss o E.g., 40% chance that D’s negligence will cause P to go blind. That injury will result in $100,000 in damages. P would be awarded $40,000 for this possibility (Janiak v Ippolito [1985] – SCC) Loss of chance cases typically arise when D’s negligence has denied P a possibility of avoiding a loss In a case where someone dies, but if it weren’t for D doctor’s negligence the person would have had a 25% chance of recovery no liability because cannot succeed on balance of probabilities o If 70% chance of recovery, for example, can recover NOTE: Incorporates material contribution to risk test (though it might not be a risk at all – definitely injured someone) with the proportionate cause test. There was no way to know which D caused which victim’s injury, but each contributed to the risk. NOTE: Different than Fairchild because in that case Ds may not actually have been injured by P at all. Himowitz: Same facts as Sindell, BUT no exculpatory clause even if a D company could show that they didn’t sell the drug at the relevant time and place, they could still be found liable Multiple Causes Two issues raised by multiple causes: 1. Over-determination: when you have multiple sufficient causes, no one cause is a necessary cause of the injury 2. Under-determination: when you have multiple insufficient causes, no single cause on its own can be said to be the cause of the injury More than one tortious cause [multiple Ds] Tortious cause and non-tortious cause [e.g. act of nature] Timing: when causes happen simultaneously or sequentially Must ask two questions before commencing an analysis under multiple causes: (a) Is the injury divisible or indivisible? o Divisible injuries can be attributed to act of a single tortfeaser E.g. A shoots you in arm, B shoots C in leg A responsible for arm and B is responsible for leg But if C dies, that is an indivisible injury o Divisible injuries no problems for multiple causes because there aren’t multiple causes. (b) If indivisible, are the defendants joint tortfeasors or independent tortfeasers? o Independent tortfeasers are liable only for injury they cause o Joint tortfeasers are liable for all injuries caused by other tortfeasers. Only one needs to be proven. o JOINT TORTFEASERS: Cook v Lewis [1951] SCC Three categories of cases where Ds will be joint tortfeasors: i. Principal and agent relationships (agent committing tort while acting for principal) 26 ii. o Master and servant relationships (employee committing tort in course of employment) iii. Concerted actions or joint ventures (2+ individuals acting in concert to bring about a common end that is illegal, inherently dangerous, or one in which negligence can be anticipated) This third case is the most fact-specific and also the most testable The release of one joint tortfeasor extinguishes P’s right to sue the other joint tortfeasor (Tucker (Public Trustee of) v Asleson [1993] BCCA) P could settle with one tortfeasor, not provide a release, and then sue the remaining joint tortfeasors If independent, need to establish causation independently. Independent tortfeasors are only liable for the injuries that they cause Two situations: 1. Those involving independent insufficient causes But-for test is adequate 2. Those involving independent sufficient causes But-for test produces anomalous results Newcastle (Town) v Mattatall (1987) NBQB FACTS: 3 youths broke into a rink with the intention of stealing everything they could find. One of them negligently started a fire that resulted in substantial property damage. ISSUE: Are other youths also responsible for that property damage? HELD: Yes; jointly and severally liable. REASONS: The fire was caused in pursuit of the three youths’ common wrongful intention. NOTE: Falls into the 3rd category outlined in Cook v Lewis. (Class) Martin: four brothers held liable when one beat up P who they owed money. All were trespassers and … Two Types of Independent Causes (make a chart) Multiple Insufficient Causes A) Tortious and non-tortious B) Tortious and tortious Multiple Sufficient Causes A) Tortious and non-tortious i) Sequential ii) Simultaneous B) Tortious and tortious i) Sequential ii) Simultaneous 1. Multiple Insufficient Causes – but-for test is adequate Two possible scenarios: A. Tortious and non-tortious B. Tortious and tortious A) Tortious and Non-Tortious: This is almost always every injury. Usually something D as a tortfeasor did not/could not control (P gets full recovery using the but-for test) (Multiple causes, all of which are necessary, but none of which are sufficient) Authority: Athey v Leonati 27 How to approach: P recovers from full extent of injury on the basis of the but-for test. Aim is to restore Athey v Leonati [1996] SCC Multiple tortious + multiple non-tortious causes MCI FACTS: P had pre-existing back problems and was involved in two traffic crashes negligently caused by Ds, who admitted negligence. P’s doctor advised fitness classes. P experienced a herniated disc from an exercise one day, was permanently partially disabled and forced to quit job and take a different one with lower pay. TJ said crash causally contributed to onset of disability, but reduced P’s damages by 75% to reflect greater causal role played by pre-existing back condition. CA upheld. P appeals to SCC. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: Trial judge says D is 25% liable (rejected by SCC) HELD: For P; appeal allowed; full liability. REASONS: D’s negligence need not be the sole cause, but enough that D was part of the cause of injury. There is no basis for reduction of liability because of the existence of other preconditions. There is a single indivisible injury here (disc herniation) so division is neither possible nor appropriate. Crumbling Skull Doctrine: Similar to TSR, crumbling skull recognizes that the preexisting condition was inherent in P’s “original position” D need not put P in a position “better” than their original one o No need to compensate for injuries P would have experienced anyway; only liable for additional damage; can take into account “measurable risk” of the injury occurring anyway o This argument does not succeed because at trial there was no finding of any measurable risk that the disc herniation would have occurred without the accident. Thus, there was no basis to reduce the award to account for such risk Mere stretching alone was not sufficient to cause herniation in the absence of some latent disposition or previous injuries. If injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents caused or contributed to herniation, Ds are fully liable for damages flowing from herniation P must prove causation via but-for test (1) If disc herniation would likely have occurred at the same time, without injuries sustained in the accident, causation is not proven (2) If it is necessary to have both the accidents and the pre-existing condition for herniation to occur, causation is proven, since herniation wouldn’t have occurred but-for the accident D’s actions never have to be the sole cause (3) If accidents alone a sufficient cause and pre-existing conditions alone a sufficient cause, unclear which was the cause-in-fact of the herniation. TJ must determine on balance of probabilities. Findings from trial judge show that option 2 is the applicable scenario, even though preexisting condition was found to play a greater role (accidents contributed 25%, thus outside de minimis range – it is a material contribution to injury). Thus, causation is met. o There is no apportionment of damages based on % of contribution. Principle of full restoration – P’s back would be fine but-for D’s negligence. If apportionment was ever allowed, tort law would never compensate P for injury. Clements v Clements (above) is also an independent insufficient causes case involving a tortious and non-tortious cause. 28 Nowlan v Brunswick Construction Ltd (1972) – NBCA FACTS: D contractor was negligent in constructing P’s house, which suffered extensive rot due to leaks in the structure. D argues that no damage would have occurred but-for architect’s poor design, which had not provided for proper ventilation. Trial judge found for D. HELD: Appeal allowed, for P. REASONS: While architect contributed, so did the contractor. True that there wouldn’t have been rot if the architect did his job properly, but there also wouldn’t have been rot if, notwithstanding the poor architecture, the contractor did his job properly. Arneil v Paterson [1931] – HL FACTS: Ds’ 2 dogs separately mauled P’s sheep, killing 2 of them. HELD: For P; each D liable. REASONS: Impossible to determine which dog caused which injuries to which sheep, but the loss should be viewed as indivisible with both dog owners liable for the entire loss. NOTE: It may also have been difficult for the court to disentangle causal roles of two or more negligent acts if they happen in close succession (chain reaction, multi-vehicle car crashes are another example of this issue). B) Tortious and Tortious: Independently insufficient, but both necessary for injury to result Chapman v Hearse (1961) – HC Australia FACTS: Chapman injured himself in a car accident. Cherry stopped at the scene to help. Cherry was killed when Hearse’s car hit him. Thus, there are two Ds – Chapman, who carelessly caused the scene that invoked Cherry to stop, and Hearse, who carelessly hit Cherry. HELD: D’s jointly and severally liable. REASONS: P can choose to sue one D for all injuries or both Ds. If chooses 1 D, that D can then sue the other D for being negligent. Here, Cherry’s estate sued Chapman, and Chapman sued Hearse. Both causes are necessary but independently insufficient injury wouldn’t have happened if other person hadn’t done something wrong o Each D was a “but-for” cause of Cherry’s death o Neither them alone was sufficient 2. Multiple Sufficient Causes Cause problems for the but-for test If two tortfeasors cause an injury, but each individual tortfeasor’s action would have sufficed to cause that injury, but-for test would fail for both tortfeasors and both would be absolved of liability To correct this obvious inequity, courts have applied a significant or substantial factor test of causation in such situations (1) P’s fate after the appeal period ends has no impact on the original tortfeasor’s liability (2) Tortfeasor’s liability reduced to reflect P’s pre-existing injuries/disabilities (consistent with taking P as you find him/her) (3) More uncertainty where P suffers independent, parallel injury prior to trial on the first injury Example 1: Both A and B shoot C in the heart at the same time. Neither one was a necessary cause, but both did a negligent act that culminated in C’s death. 29 Example 2: Both A and B want C dead, but are unaware of each other’s desires. A poisons C’s water in C’s only flask. B, unaware that A has done this, puts a hole in the flask. C goes into desert and dies of thirst. If B hadn’t put hole in flask, C would still be dead. If A hadn’t put poison there, C would still be dead. POSSIBLE SCENARIOS: A. Tortious and Non-tortious i. Successive ii. Simultaneous These have the same result for liability B. Tortious and Tortious These are very rare i. Successive ii. Simultaneous These have differing results for liability A) Tortious and Non-Tortious: Penner v Mitchell (1978) – Alta CA Tortious and non-tortious causes FACTS: Trial judge awarded P (respondent) damages for loss of income for 13 months due to the accident caused by D (appellant). Respondent would have been unable to work for 3 of those months anyway due to a pre-existing heart condition. Appellant contends that he should not have had to compensate her for that 3-month period. HELD: Appeal allowed, for D. Owes $9,230 rather than $12,000. REASONS: Contingencies that do not give rise to a cause of action (non-tortious) should be taken into account when assessing damages. This is contrasted to circumstances such as in Baker v Willoughby in which the successive injury arose by culpable means (i.e., another tortfeasor caused it – 2 tortious causes). In that case, L. REID did not allow the subsequent injury to mitigate the damages owed by the first tortfeasor. Future contingencies arising in culpable circumstances should not be taken into account because otherwise the P would receive less than full compensation Not taking into account contingencies arising from non-culpable circumstances would overcompensate the P P cannot recover from things that flow from non-tortious causes. Ask: “in a world without wrongs, would this have happened?” D will only be liable for loss that exceed the losses that P would have sustained anyway When tortious and non-tortious cause are both sufficient to cause the same injury, timing is irrelevant to liability Can be significant for two tortious causes B) Tortious and Tortious: Lambton v Mellish [1894] NOT REALLY an example of simultaneous tortious causes; significant factor test FACTS: D had an amusement/refreshment stand with a merry-go-round. He also had organ music accompanying the ride, playing from the morning until night. A rival business also had an organ. P said the noise was maddening and applied to the court for an injunction. D says his organ is much quieter than the rival’s. HELD: For P. Both D’s liable for ALL P’s resulting losses. 30 REASONS: Each man is making a noise and each is adding his quantum until the whole constitutes a nuisance (both Ds are contributing a significant factor in P’s injury). Each is separately liable. Cannot have someone else’s wrong as a defense NOTE: If the “but-for” test were applied, it would exculpate both D’s. The P has essentially been wronged twice and shouldn’t receive zero damages because of that. This is somewhat of a “global” but-for test – in a world without wrongs, what position would P be in? Here, she would still have injury. NOTE: “Necessary Element of a Sufficient Set” (NESS) Test is NOT the appropriate test. (of actual antecedent causal factors) Example: small group and scotch????? NOTE: DON’T APPLY the MCR test – Apply the SIGNIFICANT FACTOR TET Baker v Willoughby [1969] – HL Sequential tortious causes; endorsed in Penner FACTS: D caused a car accident, leaving P with a “stiff leg.” Because of this stiff leg, P suffered a diminished earning capacity. Before trial, P was shot in the same leg by a thief, resulting in amputation. The question at trial was who was liable for the loss of income? CA ruled that the 2nd injury subsumed the 1st injury, and thus held for D. P appealed. D argued that he was no longer liable because the injury caused by his tort was subsumed by second injury/tort ISSUE: Who is liable? HELD: For P. REASONS: The first D is liable (the one who caused the car accident). The second D was entitled to take the victim as he found him (essentially the thin skull rule being used to his benefit). The first injury caused P’s inability to lead a full life, while the second injury did not diminish or exacerbate P’s position from this standpoint. *This is the dominant approach. NOTE: There are 2 other possible scenarios (aside from the dominant approach applied here) for a case of successive tortious actions for independent sufficient causes: (1) Second D is fully liable the first tortfeasor should not be responsible for a subsequent loss. P’s injury would have happened anyways (essentially the same argument as used for a successive non-tortious injury). This is the least popular test – it was applied by the CA in this case. (2) Both D’s are liable this is the same approach as is applied for simultaneous tortious independent sufficient causes. NOTE: D can sue for contribution with any of these 3 approaches. NOTE: If the 2nd D had made P’s loss of income even worse, each D would be liable for the extent that their tort caused the portion of the loss. NOTE: If the 2nd injury occurred after trial, the 1st D would automatically be wholly liable and could not sue for compensation (no damage reduction on account of 2nd tortious cause – see hypothetical below) WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH SEQUENTIAL TORTIOUS CAUSES? 1. D1 is liable (Baker) (justification=TSR) 2. D2 is liable (justification=it was going to happen anyway) 3. Let P choose (justification=P can’t always find both Ds – e.g. Baker: D2 ran away) WHAT IS THE RULE IN CANADA FOR SEQUENTIAL TORTIOUS CAUSES? There is case law supporting all three approaches Mostly Rule 1: D1 is fully liable (Penner, Baker) 31 Damages typically assessed against D1 as if the wrong occurred immediately BEFORE D2’s tort D2 not liable for damages caused by T1 – but if T2 exacerbates damages P suffered (e.g. Baker) then they’re responsible for that The rule is D1 is responsible in cases of multiple sufficient sequential tortious causes, and D2 will only be liable for the losses flowing from their tort if those losses add to those caused by D1 Thin Skull Rule vs. Crumbling Skull Rule TSR: o Take victim as you find them CSR: o Relevant in causation o Tortfeaser must accept victim’s frailties but doesn’t need to relieve the P of losses that P would have suffered anyway o But may have to compensate for exacerbation of those original frailties Remoteness (AKA Legal Causation) “The whole purpose of remoteness is to cut off the logical inquiry at some point. Moreover, that cut-off point will necessarily be somewhat arbitrary, because it is based on policy rather than logic.” Sinel: remoteness answers questions of whether a certain consequence of my action is my responsibility. For intentional torts, consequences are the responsibility of the actor when they intend to bring those consequences about. In negligence, we say the actor was negligent with respect to bringing about those actions How is it the actor’s responsibility? Causally affected/created an outcome, but which consequences “belong to” the actor? When you’re negligent, you’re imposing an unreasonable risk (SOC) You are responsible for the consequences of your unreasonably-imposed risks Risks are relational – dangerous to someone for something Two Perspectives about Remoteness 1. The ambit of one’s responsibility is coterminous with the ambit of the risk one unreasonably imposed o Liability is dependent on the use of judicial reasons o Has an internal limit o Cardozo-esque (Palsgraf) 2. Remoteness is merely a tool to arbitrarily cut off the ambit of one’s responsibility o Arbitrary ≠ unprincipled o Subject to judicial discretion (think Denning) o This is the view promoted by the textbook 32 Relationship Between Remoteness and DOC SIMILARITIES Reasonable foreseeability don’t owe duty to a person when they would not be affected by your actions (in reasonable contemplation) Both are tools the courts use to draw the line for where liability ends o E.g., Palsgraf: 1) Injuries too remote; 2) P not a foreseeable victim DIFFERENCES DOC is more about conduct, while remoteness is more about consequences DOC asks the question: Is this person in my contemplation? Remoteness asks the question: Is this person’s limb in my contemplation? Relationship between Remoteness and SOC SIMILARITIES D negligent only if he/she exposes another to an unreasonable risk SOC looks like an inquiry into the likelihood of injury occurring and so does remoteness DIFFERENCES Can breach SOC (and be negligent), but the injury can be too remote Doughty v Turner Not liable because the injury was too remote, though could argue that the SOC was breached Mustapha Palsgraf Cardozo thinks no SOC breached (Sinel disagrees), but her injury was too remote TRY TO USE CASE LAW TO SHOW WHERE ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IS PRESENT BUT THE OTHER IS NOT Tests for Drawing the Remoteness Line 1. Directness Test (Polemis) Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] – KB FACTS: D’s servants dropped plank of wood onto canister of benzene that was in P’s ship, causing an explosion that destroyed it. HELD: For P. REASONS: Directness as the test for remoteness not too remote if a direct (close temporal and spatial connection) result of defendant’s carelessness. Not reasonably foreseeable, but direct connection. NOTE: Criticized as being theoretically unsound. NOT GOOD LAW, ALLEGEDLY A close spatial/temporal connection between breach and damage In Polemis, dropping something and causing an explosion was direct, though not reasonably foreseeable – held D liable Not a good test anymore negligence = to hold liable for consequences in reasonable contemplation It is theoretically unsound and unfair Very pro-plaintiff In Wagon Mound #1 L. SIMMONDS criticizes the directness rule Disproportionate to allow for all consequences It is fair to hold liable for probable consequences of an act This is a principle of civil liability 33 To demand more would be too harsh, to demand less ignores the minimum standard 2. Reasonable Foreseeability of Injury (Wagon Mound #1) Wagon Mound #1 [1961] – PC FACTS: Appellants carelessly leaked oil while fueling a ship. Oil escaped for over a day, carried under the respondent’s wharf, whose men were welding. Sparks lit the oil on fire and severely damaged the wharf. TJ held that fire not reasonably foreseeable to spread on water, but held for the plaintiff/respondent on the basis of oil congealment on the wharf. HELD: Appeal allowed. REASONS: The test for remoteness is whether a reasonable person would foresee the damage (NOT directness). Directness leads to never-ending and insoluble problems of causation. Reasonableness is in accordance with paying for a moral wrongdoing (per Donoghue). NOTE: In Assiniboine, DICKSON says the WM#1 was decided in that way because it was not known that oil could burn over water. D in that case had a duty not to discharge oil, not for fire concerns but for concern of damaging the wharf/shore. This would have satisfied the directness test, but it was not reasonably foreseeable DICKSON details the reasonable foreseeability test Applying to WM#1 fire was not reasonably foreseeable o One is not responsible merely because the consequence is natural and probable, but because natural and probable consequences are foreseeable o Characterization of reasonably foreseeable as probability of injury Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 v San Sebastien Ltd [1983] – NSW CA Reasonable foreseeability = possibility that careless conduct of any kind on the part of D may result in damage of some kind to P or P’s property Breach = reasonably foreseeable that the kind of carelessness of D might cause damage of some kind to P Problems with the reasonably foreseeable test: Insufficient precision – judges have retreated from WM#1 Though the test says “probable,” unclear what level of reasonable foreseeability is sufficient 3. Reasonable Foreseeability of Possibility of Injury (Wagon Mound #2) Wagon Mound #2 [1967] – PC FACTS: Same facts as Wagon Mound #1, but Ps here were owners of two boats damaged in the harbour fire. TJ dismissed the action for negligence because it was not reasonably foreseeable (thus, too remote), but rather a mere possibility. HELD: For P. REASONS: (LORD REID) significantly diminished the strength of WM#1 In the present case, there is a real risk which would not have been ignored by a reasonable person (Bolton v Stone). It is a real, but small risk, so must consider the cost of precautions. There are NO valid reasons for running the risk because dumping oil in the harbour is illegal and they could have easily refrained. 34 A reasonable person would only neglect a minute risk if he had a good reason for doing so (e.g., considerable expense) no justification in the present case for discharging oil into the harbour (an offense in itself, plus it cost them money) Because a risk is remote does not mean it is not reasonably foreseeable Reasonable person ought to have known of the risk of oil igniting The biggest difference from WM#1 is that there is evidence here (WM#2) that bunker oil would catch fire on water (different finding of fact) o In WM#1, it was not in the plaintiff’s favour to raise this as fact because he would have been contributorily negligent for welding with an open flame nearby NOTE: LORD REID’s characterization of the risk = the possibility of fire. Since fire has occurred, clearly within the ambit of wrongdoing/risk. Assiniboine South School Division, No 3 v Greater Winnipeg Gas Co (1971) – Man CA; aff’d (1973) SCC FACTS: Snowmobilers struck a gas riser pipe, causing leakage into the adjacent school. Explosion caused extensive damage to the school. TJ awarded damages of $50K, paid 50% by the gas company and 50% by the snowmobilers. All Ds appeal. HELD: REASONS: It is a question of what is possible rather than what is probable (in line with WM#2). The extent of damage and its manner of incidence need not be foreseeable if physical damage of the kind which in fact ensues is foreseeable. Here, damage was of the type or kind which any reasonable person might foresee Gas company likewise should have foreseen the possibility that the riser would be damaged. Though the likelihood of it being struck by a vehicle was not great, the probable seriousness of any injury was very great o Costs? Protective pipes could have been installed at a small cost and with little difficulty NOTE: At trial, the injury has already happened, therefore it was clearly possible This issue is addressed in Mustapha possibility alone does not mean something is reasonably foreseeable. Endorses LORD REID in WM#2 saying that if it is a real risk that a reasonable person would not have easily brushed aside, it is foreseeable. Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd [2008] – SCC Leading case for psych damage FACTS: Mustapha bought a water bottle made by Culligan, saw parts of dead flies in it and ended up having depression/severe psychiatric debilitations. The ONCA claimed that there was no DOC owed, but the SCC says the problem turns on remoteness. HELD: For D; damage is too remote. REASONS: Culligan, a manufacturer, owed a DOC to P. It also breached the SOC and P’s injury is a cognizable psychiatric injury. However, need to determine if too remote. Any injury which has in fact happened is possible. Thus, this is not a helpful standard. Need to assess via a “real risk” (WM#2). In terms of psychiatric injuries, need to consider how a person of reasonable fortitude might react – unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence are imaginable but are not reasonably foreseeable If D knows of this susceptibility, injury might be reasonably foreseeable (not the case here) 35 NOTE: Why doesn’t the thin skull rule (TSR) allow Mustapha to recover? Some think that Mustapha violates the TSR. 4. Reasonable Foreseeability of Type of Injury (Hughes) Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] – HL FACTS: D’s employees left a paraffin lamp and open manhole unattended (inside a tent). An 8-year-old boy knocked the lamp into the manhole and the vaporized paraffin that escaped from the broken lamp caused an explosion. The boy fell into the manhole and was badly burned. HELD: For P - full liability. REASONS: Even though (1) the extent of the injury and (2) the manner in which it occurred were NOT reasonably foreseeable, burning in general was reasonably foreseeable. The distinction between injury from exploding and injury from burning is irrelevant. The extent of the injury is irrelevant, but the manner is a consideration (although, the manner is not really important here because the type of injury was reasonably foreseeable). LORD REID: “The cause of this accident was a known source of danger, the lamp, but it behaved in an unpredictable way.” o Mirrors DICKSON in Assiniboine: “One need not envisage “the precise concatenation of circumstances which led up to the accident.”” LORD GUEST: The lamps were attractive to children and it is foreseeable that they might pick them up and play with them NOTE: How was Doughty v Turner decided to be no liability on the strength of this case? Tremain v Pike [1969] – ER Seems to go against HL in Hughes FACTS: D carelessly failed to control rat population on his farm. P, a farmhand, contracted Weil’s disease after coming into contact with rat urine. HELD: For D. REASONS: Though injury from rat bites was reasonably foreseeable, rat urine not reasonably foreseeable to be problematic. NOTE: Relies on a characterization of P’s injury, contrary to Hughes. Jolley v Sutton London BC [2000] – HL FACTS: D’s boat was dangerously decrepit and he resolved to remove it, however never did so. P and friend (14 years old) found it and wanted to sail it. Hoisted it up with a car jack to repair and it fell, rendering P paraplegic. TJ found for P, with 25% reduction due to contributory negligence. CA reversed based on remoteness, taking a narrow view of both Wagon Mound #1 and Hughes, saying accident was a different type than what was reasonably foreseeable. P appealed. HELD: Trial judgement restored – for P. REASONS: Children’s play can take the form of mimicking adult behaviour and it was reasonably foreseeable that children would “meddle with the boat at some risk of injury.” Their conduct did not sever the chain of causation (not a novus actus). Lauritzan v Barstead (1965) – Alta SC FACTS: D’s negligence caused his car to be stuck in snow during a bad storm on a relatively unused portion of a rural highway. P and D forced to stay in vehicle for 36 hours. P left for help after that but got severe frostbite. Had to have both feet amputated. P’s wife of 26 years left him because she did not want to live with a disabled man. 36 HELD: Physical injuries not too remote, but loss of consortium is not a foreseeable injury. Trevison v Springman [1996] – BCSC FACTS: D was entrusted with P’s house key. D’s son stole house key and set fire to P’s house in order to cover up a series of thefts. HELD: For D. REASONS: Losses due to fire too remote from D’s negligent failure to supervise and control frequently delinquent son. D is only liable for P’s losses due to theft. 5. Ambit of the Risk Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964] – EWCA FACTS: Doughty injured in his work at a factory owned by Turner when a cover over a cauldron of molten hot liquid fell in and caused an explosion, propelling the liquid towards him. It was unknown that the cover would explode when it fell into the liquid. Turner liable at trial, which they appeal. P’s Argument: Hughes should apply since the type of injury was unforeseeable, but injury in general was foreseeable. HELD: Appeal allowed, not foreseeable. ISSUE: Was the specific cause of injury foreseeable? REASONS: LORD DIPLOCK says the ratio from Wagon Mound must be applied. This case is different than Hughes because in that case a boy was injured by an uncovered manhole – the specific injury was unforeseeable, but D’s negligence directly led to it. Here, the only duty owed to Doughty was to ensure that he would not be injured if the top fell in the liquid and splashed over the side. This was prevented. Only reason Doughty was injured was because of an explosion, which Turner had no duty to protect as it was unforeseeable. There were two risks: o (1) Splashing from something dropping in the liquid (Known) o (2) Explosion from the lid disintegrating in the liquid (Unknown) Risk #1 was not run – the lid slid in, it did not drop in and splash Risk #2 was run – this is what eventuated P’s injury o However, at the time of the accident, D had no duty not to run risk #2 because it was unknown at the time of the accident. Further, their entire operation involved dipping items into the liquid, so a lid sliding in wasn’t perceived to be dangerous “The fact that it was done inadvertently cannot create any liability, for the immersion of the cover was not an act which they were under any duty to take care to avoid.” The duty here was not to create a splash, NOT “don’t create an explosion” In Hughes, the breach of duty was legally and causally connected to D’s actions, which is not the case here NOTE: Could perhaps consider this case to involve a question of SOC (i.e., D should have taken care not to negligently knock the lid in). However, SOC is more general (i.e., did someone run an unreasonable risk?), whereas remoteness is specific (i.e., is that breach or unreasonable risk connected to the injury?). While the two concepts definitely overlap, this is more appropriately remoteness. Ambit of the risk test also described by DICKSON in Assiniboine: “When one permits a power toboggan to run at large, or when one fires a rifle blindly down a city street, one 37 must not define narrowly the outer limits of reasonable prevision. The ambit of foreseeable damage is indeed broad.” Thin Skull Rule Deals with the extent of injury Even though Polemis is no longer good law, the TSR reasoning seems to be explained well by that case’s directness test. Directness is evaluated via the value of the right that was lost, and does NOT apply to consequential losses. o TSR is about valuating the right damaged or lost, and things that flow from it (ability to work, happiness in your life, etc.) are NOT covered If it was NOT reasonably foreseeable that D’s carelessness would cause any injury of a particular type, then P cannot recover even if, because of a peculiar vulnerability, he/she actually suffered a great deal o However, if it was reasonably foreseeable that D’s carelessness would cause SOME injury of a particular type, then P can recover in full even if, because of a special vulnerability, he/she suffered to a greater extent than could have been reasonably foreseen Different from a crumbling skull (causation chapter) o Crumbling skull = doomed to damage. D only responsible for extent that he/she hastened the injury Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] – QB Illustrates Thin Skull Rule (TSR) FACTS: Piece of metal flew off and burned a man on the lip. Because of this burn and a predisposition, he got cancer and died. HELD: For P. REASONS: The thin skull rule (TSR) dictates that you must take your plaintiff as you find him/her. It does not matter if D knew of the vulnerability. Wagon Mound, which describes the remoteness test as based on reasonable foreseeability, does not undermine this principle, even though it did not have TSR in mind. The test is NOT whether the burn would, with reasonable foreseeability, cause cancer, but rather whether D could reasonably foresee the damage suffered (i.e., the burn), which they could. D found liable for full consequences of the tort. NOTE: If anything, the TSR undermines Wagon Mound. Marconato v Franklin [1974] – BCSC FACTS: Woman was physically injured in a motor vehicle accident in which D was negligent. She became depressed, hostile, and anxious (personality change), however she had preexisting paranoid tendencies. HELD: For P. REASONS: Once you establish physical injury from D’s negligence, any consequential loss stemming from that physical injury is compensable. Granted P was predisposed to psychotic tendencies, but D’s negligence set it in motion to arise. NOTE: Distinguished from Mustapha because P suffered no physical injury there. Might have been successful had he experienced physical injury first. Thin-Skulled vs Thin-Skinned Can recover for everything stemming from physical injury, including resultant emotional damage or psychiatric injury (thin-skull) But if your action caused emotional damages which then turned into psychiatric injury, would NOT be able to recover (thin-skinned) o The law assumes that D is dealing with a person of reasonable mental fortitude (Mustapha) 38 o Not reasonable to demand D to take care with respect to an extra-sensitive person where everyone else would not be affected Thin-Skull Rule and Suicide Swami v Lo [1980] – BCSC FACTS: Victim, a mentally-healthy man, got into motor vehicle accident due to D’s negligence. Because of the pain from the accident, he began drinking a lot and quit work. He became very depressed and killed himself. HELD: For D – too remote. REASONS: The man was not criminally or civilly insane. NOTE: If the initial injuries had led to a psychiatric injury developing, and that legal insanity leads to suicide, then victim’s suicide would have fallen within ambit of D’s negligence/risk and would not have been too remote. However, mere depression is not recognized as “insanity” in the eyes of the law. Further, his drinking and quitting work contributed. Gray v Cotic (1983) – SCC If victim has a pre-existing mental condition, will be able to hold D liable for the victim’s suicide after D negligently injures the victim. Takeaway: A person has to have been rendered legally insane before the suicide to have the suicide considered as within the ambit of D’s wrongdoing. Can also think of it in terms of agency – was the person who committed suicide acting with his/her own agency? If not, D is responsible. Kavanagh v Akhtar (1998) – NSW CA FACTS: Heavy box fell on P at D’s store, causing injuries to her shoulder and arm. She was unable to care for her very long hair, so she had it cut short. Her husband, a devout Muslim, perceived this as against their religion and left her. P sues for psychiatric injuries suffered as a result. HELD: For P. Thin-Wallet Rule Dredger Liesbosch v Steamship Edison [1993] – HL Thin wallet rule not recognized FACTS: P’s ship sunk and lost due to D’s carelessness. Before the accident, P contractually promised to use the ship to provide certain services to a 3rd party. Further, P had a generallystrained financial situation so couldn’t buy a new ship immediately, so had to rent another ship to fulfill the contract. HELD: P can recover value of ship, but not more. REASONS: D is not responsible for P’s impecuniosity. NOTE: Overruled by HL in Lagden v O’Connor [2004]. Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica v Broderick [2000] – PC FACTS: D committed tort of nuisance by operating a smelting plant that emitted corrosive materials and damaged P’s roof. This occurred in 1989, damage was $211,000. By trial in 1994, cost was $938,000 due to inflation. TJ awarded the inflated amount. D appealed to Privy Council on the basis of Liesbosch and that P should have repaired roof immediately. HELD: For P, appeal dismissed. REASONS: No absolute rule that requires damages to be assessed at date of initial harm. There is also no absolute rule that P cannot recover full value of a loss that was exacerbated by its own impecuniosity. Reasonable foreseeability test applies reasonably foreseeable on the 39 facts of this case that a person in P’s position might not be able to afford to immediately repair damage caused by D’s nuisance and that economic factors would render later repairs costlier. Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] – EWCA FACTS: Motorists negligently crashed into P’s property [Network Rail], who was contractually obliged to compensate other corporations operating passenger rail services for service interruptions caused by the damage. Can P recover that cost from negligent motorists? HELD: For P. REASONS: The expenses are a foreseeable type of harm when a commercial asset is negligently damaged. NOTE: This is economic loss consequential on property damage. Pure economic loss is resolved based on special duty principles. Intervening Act (Novus Actus Interveniens) Some factor that interrupts the causal sequence of events Does not affect factual causation, but rather legal causation (aka remoteness) Any outside force (human or natural) A full defence Eliminates claim P has against D because it becomes too remote The current Canadian test is the “within the scope of the risk” test Bradford v Kanellos (1973) – SCC Leading case for the novus actus test in Canada FACTS: Grill in a restaurant (D) built up grease, and the kitchen staff failed to clean it. The kitchen was open and visible to the dining area. The grill had a fire-prevention system. When it caught fire, the workers competently used the system, which caused a hissing and popping sound. An unidentified restaurant patron (“idiot”) heard the sound, stood up and yelled that there was gas and there could be an explosion. A stampede ensued and P got trampled. P sued the restaurant. ISSUE: Was the consequence within the risk created by the respondent’s negligence in permitting an undue amount of grease to build up on grill? D’s Argument: The idiot was a novus actus. TJ found for P, saying the idiot’s actions were reasonably foreseeable because in an emergency situation people act unpredictably and unstably. ONCA reversed it and said the idiot was a novus actus. P appealed to SCC. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: Trial found liable because actions of person was reasonably foreseeable (RF that people act in idiotic ways in an emergency HELD: Appeal dismissed. For D. REASONS (MARTLAND J, majority): Fire was D’s fault, but they did everything correctly when it started. They had good fire prevention equipment in place and used it. P’s injuries resulted from the idiot’s actions. The idiot’s actions were a novus actus. It would not be fair to recognize the stampede as within the risk of D’s negligence (the negligence being the failure to clean the grill). (SPENCE J (+ LASKIN), dissent): “Idiot” acted in a usual/human way. The kitchen, being open to the restaurant, was set up such that it would be a reasonable reaction to start panicking upon seeing fire. D is running the unreasonable risk that people will see the fire and panic. The person guilty of original negligence ought to have reasonably foreseen the subsequent intervening negligence. NOTE: Intervening person seen as acting in a reasonably foreseeable manner by TJ and dissent at SCC, thus dismissing the possibility of novus actus. The matter also seems to hinge 40 on whether the intervening person was acting reasonably. Oke v Weide Transport Ltd (1963) – Man CA FACTS: D knocked down traffic sign on gravel strip separating eastbound and westbound lanes. D stopped, removed some debris, but was unable to move the sign. D notified garage attendant, but not the police or highway authorities. Next day, driver was killed when he was trying to pass illegally and the sign pierced his chest. HELD: For D. REASONS: Even if D was careless in not reporting the incident, could not be liable because deceased’s intervening act and its consequences could not have been foreseen. Price v Milawski (1977) – Ont CA Medical negligence Novus actus FACTS: P injured ankle playing soccer, but the doctor (D) ordered x-rays on his foot. X-ray came back negative. P went to another doctor, who looked at the x-rays and also said it was not broken. After some time and further discomfort, went to yet another doctor who ordered new xrays and found the break. P suffered permanent disabilities because of the delays in proper treatment. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: TJ found first 2 doctors negligent. Ds appealed to ONCA. ISSUE: Was the 2nd doctor’s decision not to order new x-rays a novus actus? Is it within the scope of the risk? HELD: Appeal dismissed. For P. REASONS: “A person doing a negligent act may, in circumstances lending themselves to that conclusion, be held liable for future damages arising in part from the subsequent negligent act of another, and in part from his own negligence, where such subsequent negligence and consequent damage were reasonably foreseeable as a possible result of his own negligence.” It was reasonably foreseeable that the negligent x-ray would be relied upon by other doctors. Such a risk was not one a reasonable man in 1st doctor’s position would brush aside as far-fetched (WM#2) It was a breach of SOC for D1 to tell D2 to x-ray foot because he injured his ankle Breach for D2 not to order new x-rays upon seeing Block v Martin [1951] – Alta SC FACTS: D negligently ran over P, causing slight fracture in leg. P’s doctor told him to keep walking. P slipped while fishing and completely fractured the leg. HELD: For P. REASONS: original injury was a cause of the second fracture and P’s conduct in going fishing was not a novus actus. Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd [2009] – EWCA FACTS: P suffered minor injury, but eventually led to amputation. Fitted with prosthesis. Stopped at a gas station, didn’t put on prosthesis when he exited the car, tripped and fell, seriously injuring other leg. HELD: For P, but reduced due to contributory negligence. 41 Bourgoin v Leamington (Municipality) (2006) – Ont SCJ FACTS: P suffered ankle injury while walking on uneven sidewalk, developed chronic intractable pain. D argued she failed to reduce damages by refusing to undergo recommended amputation which was 95% likely to eliminate pain. HELD: For P. REASONS: Municipality should have repaired sidewalk in state of disrepair. Not unreasonable for P to not want to amputate leg. Hewson v Red Deer (1976) – Alta TD FACTS: Tractor owned by the city was left on a pile of gravel by its operator, who took all the necessary precautions in leaving it idle. However, he did not remove the keys. Returned to find it had crashed into the Hewson residence. Footprints suggested an unknown person drove it from the pile. D argues the damage was too remote due to novus actus interveniens even if there was negligence. ISSUE: What is the relationship between reasonable foreseeability and the novus actus doctrine? HELD: For P; entitled to damages against the City. REASONS: Injury may have been prevented by elementary precautions: removing key and locking cab. These precautions were not taken. It is a populated area and so it is reasonably foreseeable that someone would go inside and drive it. Novus actus is not applicable in the present case. RATIO: Defence of novus actus is not available if the D failed to guard against the very thing that was likely to occur; where the negligence was failing to prevent the intervening act, you cannot claim that the intervening act made the loss too remote NOTE: Reversed on appeal – no evidence that it was reasonably foreseeable that tractor would be set in motion. Tony v Bedwell [2002] – Alta QB FACTS: D stopped at traffic light when someone smashed his windshield. He got out and ran after him leaving the keys behind, but his car was stolen when he did that. The thief crashed his car into P’s car. P sued D in negligence. HELD: For D. REASONS: Reasonably foreseeable that car would be stolen, but not that the thief would drive in such a manner as to cause damage (no witnesses, so to say that the thief was panicked isn’t obvious). Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office [1970] – HL NOTE: This case is about DOC. Issues regarding remoteness are said in obiter. The summary below is referencing the arguments re: remoteness. FACTS: Several “borstal boys” (young offenders ages 15-20) were under the supervision of 3 officers of the Home Office (correctional department) when they were working on an island. The officers went to sleep and left them to their work. 7 of the boys escaped, stole a yacht, and crashed it into another yacht owned by Dorset Yacht. They also boarded the 2nd yacht and caused further damage. The Home Office appealed Dorset’s ability to bring a claim to HL. HELD: Appeal dismissed, trial allowed. REASONS: *Sinel does not like Lord Reid’s view – prefers Diplock LORD REID – Times have changed now liability can be found for unforeseeable outcomes. One just needs to establish that initial act was negligent, which has been established. Stealing 42 the boat and damaging another is exactly the type of outcome that should’ve been foreseen. There are no obvious public policy issues to prevent finding liability. Do intervening human actions always break the chain of liability? NO. The dividing line is that the intervening act must not be very likely (i.e., an intervening act will not break the chain if it is very likely to occur). Lotto ticket example it is foreseeable to win, but winning is not a natural and probable cause of buying a lotto ticket o Mere foreseeability does not cut it o However, uses a standard (“very likely”) that seems higher than natural & probable Taking the boat and sailing it unskillfully was the very thing that the officers ought to have seen to be a very likely result of failing to supervise the borstal boys LORD DIPLOCK (concurring) – In new situations where duty is being established, the characteristics of the situation must be compared to already-established negligent situations. When there is a discrepancy from the cumulative experience of past decisions, must decide if enough is lacking in the new case to prevent establishing a duty. In the present case, being on an island makes escape by boat a very foreseeable outcome of negligence, and therefore should’ve been prevented. Do intervening human actions always break the chain of liability? NO. The dividing line is that the intervening act must not have happened because of the existence of a distinctive risk (i.e., the intervening act will not break the chain if D’s negligence created a distinctive risk – this is about the specific risk being run, the risk in contemplation. How they would escape, what they would use to do that, and the results). The borstal boys will clearly create a distinctive risk when afforded the opportunity to escape Duty is owed to persons: o Who have property in the vicinity of the place of detention; o That the detainees are likely to steal/appropriate; o When they’re trying to escape in order to avoid immediate re-capture. Diplock has more fact-specific understanding of why what they did was wrongful Difference between releasing borstal boy at the end of his term vs negligently allowing him to escape during his term? o Escaped boy – liability for recapture o Distinctive added risk=if you’re trying to escape, you will steal nearby property in order to escape. o So the reason this was wrongful is that people escaping are likely to use and damage nearby property. Lamb v London Borough Council of Camden [1981] – Eng CA FACTS: Lamb owned a house in Hampstead. She moved to America and rented her house to a tenant. LBC workers, working on the street, struck a water main that caused serious damage to the house’s foundation, the tenant moved out. All furniture was removed. Squatters eventually took over the house. However, an agent of Lamb ejected them and installed meagre security. Squatters took it over again and ruined the house. Lamb sued the LBC for the damages caused. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: LBC was successful at trial. Lamb appeals. HELD: Appeal dismissed. ISSUES: (1) Is the damage a foreseeable consequence of the LBC’s negligence? (2) Does the test set out in Dorset Yacht help reach the logical conclusion? 43 REASONS: (DENNING) – rejects LORD REID’s test from Dorset Yacht as being too expansive and allowing damages to be assessed when they should not – many things are very likely! What really underlies these types of case decisions is public policy. No one, throughout the course of squatters being in the house, suggested it was the Borough’s fault or tried to stop it. Insurance should be the provider of funds, not the courts. Although this is a foreseeable outcome of the water main breakage, using LORD REID’s test, damages should not be assessed due to public policy reasons. All judicial reasoning lies in public policy. The act of an intervening party severs liability when public policy dictates as such. Duty, causation, remoteness are all devices used to draw the line, but ultimately it’s up to policy for the judges to decide. She should have insured herself. It is not fair in a broad policy understanding that the entire borough should bear the costs of her misfortune and her failure to mitigate losses with insurance. Would be making the city an involuntary insurer of her mistakes (OLIVER) – Agrees with DENNING. LORD REID’s test does not limit damage assessment enough and should include a more stringent standard. (WATKINS) – In cases like these, judges must simply use their instincts to decide whether or not the outcome is too remote to deserve damages. Usually, there is a clear common-sense answer. 44