Page 425, Building Your Understanding
1. What is an unintentional tort?
An unintentional tort is damage to property or a personal injury caused by an accident or an action that
was not intended to cause harm.
2. a) Describe the three factors that must be proven in an action for negligence.
The three factors that must be proven in an action for negligence are
 the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
 the defendant failed to provide the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have
provided in similar circumstances
 the defendant’s actions (or failure to act) caused the plaintiff’s injuries
b) Identify the name of the process used to divide fault among several negligent parties.
The name of the process used to divide fault among several negligent parties is known as
apportionment.
3. In law, who is considered your neighbour? How was this principle established?
In law, your neighbour is anyone whom you can reasonably foresee being injured by your actions.
The neighbour principle was established by the Donoghue v. Stevenson case of 1932, in which a friend
purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Mrs. Donoghue containing the decomposed remains of a snail. After
drinking the ginger beer Mrs. Donoghue became ill. The neighbour principle expanded previous legal
principles that limited the duty of a manufacturer to the purchaser only (in this case, Mrs. Donoghue’s
friend). The Donoghue case established the precedent that a duty of care is owed to anyone who
consumes the product and is injured by it.
4. a) Define the principle of foreseeability, and explain why it is so important in determining duty
of care.
Foreseeability is the ability of a reasonable person to anticipate the consequences of an action. It is
important in determining the duty of care owing because the courts cannot reasonably expect
ordinary persons to anticipate all possible consequences of their actions to every potential neighbour.
Therefore, applying the principle of foreseeability limits the duty of care to the anticipated
consequences of the defendant’s actions.
b) Distinguish between duty of care and standard of care, and provide examples. Examples will
vary but should illustrate the distinction between the two definitions.
Duty of care is the obligation to foresee and avoid careless actions that might cause harm to others.
Standard of care is the benchmark used to establish “how much” care the defendant owed the
plaintiff. Determining the benchmark of care involves matching the defendant’s actions (or failure to
act) against what is expected from a careful person of equivalent qualifications and skills. For instance,
the actions of a surgeon would be measured against what is expected from a careful medical specialist
in the same area of practice. Similarly, the actions of a teenager would be measured against what is
expected of a careful person of a similar age and experience.
5. How does the law define a “reasonable person”?
The law defines a “reasonable person” as an ordinary person of normal intelligence. This is the standard to
which the action of an ordinary defendant is measured. In a tort action the courts will compare the action
of the defendant to that of the “reasonable person.” If the defendant’s actions fail to meet the
“reasonable person” standard, the defendant may be found liable in a court action.
6. What must a plaintiff prove to be successful in a suit for medical negligence?
To be successful in a medical negligence suit, it must be established that
 the plaintiff was not adequately informed about the medical treatment/procedure, any significant or
unusual risks or potential side effects, or any alternative treatments or procedures that may have been
available
 the plaintiff would not have had the treatment if the above information had been disclosed
 the treatment/procedure caused the injury
7. Explain the principles of cause-in-fact and remoteness of damage, providing your own examples of each.
The principle of cause-in-fact refers to the factual cause-and-effect connection between one person’s
actions and another person’s injuries.
The principle of remoteness of damage is connected to the attribute of foreseeability. If the defendant
could not have foreseen that his or her actions could cause the type of injury that resulted, then the
defendant is not liable. Ordinary persons cannot be expected to anticipate the chain of causal links
between their actions and all of the possible injuries that may result.
Student examples will vary but might be similar to the following
 John punches Remy in the face, breaking his nose. Max, who is riding his bicycle, sees the incident and
is upset by the blood. He loses control of his bicycle and hits Silva, breaking her leg. At the hospital,
the doctor fails to set Silva’s leg properly and she suffers permanent damage. Remy could sue John for
the broken nose (cause-in-fact). Silva could sue Max for breaking her leg (cause-in-fact). It is not likely
that John would be able to foresee the problems with Silva’s treatment and a lawsuit filed by Silva
against John would likely fail for remoteness of damage.

Farah is speeding in the rain; she loses control of her car and hits a hydro pole. The electricity is
knocked out in the immediate neighbourhood. The local dentist is in the middle of extracting Omid’s
wisdom teeth. When the lights go out the dentist’s hand slips causing the instrument to cut Omid’s
cheek. Omid could sue the dentist for the injury (cause-in-fact). But it is unlikely that Omid, the
plaintiff, would be able to win a lawsuit against Farah, as she would not likely be able to foresee the
incident with the dentist.
Page 430, Building Your Understanding
1. Use an example to explain the concept of product liability.
Student examples will vary, but each example should illustrate the way in which the product meets or fails
to meet one of the following standards:
 product is free of harmful defects (e.g., a gas tank that explodes because of a harmful defect in its
construction)
 product is properly manufactured (e.g., airbags are properly installed) • consumer is properly informed
of safe use (e.g., car seats for infants should face the back)
 consumer is warned of risks associated with using the product (e.g., Warning: Failure to maintain
proper oil level can result in damage to the engine)
4. When might an employer or a car owner become vicariously liable for damages in the event of an
accident?
An employer may become vicariously liable for damages if the employer failed to ensure that the work
carried out by an employee was performed properly (without negligence).
A car owner may become vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligent behaviour of anyone who
drives the car with the owner’s permission.
5. What is strict liability? Provide two examples of situations in which strict liability would
apply.
The principle of strict liability assumes that the defendant is automatically liable, even if the defendant was
not careless or at fault.
This principle applies to activities or situations that are inherently dangerous, such as owning a wild animal
or transporting hazardous goods. Student examples will vary but should include activities or situations that
are inherently dangerous, such as
 storing radioactive materials
 disposing of contaminated medical waste
 studying live poisonous spiders or snakes
6. To avoid lawsuits, manufacturers include warnings on their products. Suggest warnings that should be
included with the following products:
Answers should consider the principles of product liability and the factors involved in determining
negligence.
 potato chips
o consumption of large quantities may lead to obesity
o use caution touching other surfaces, as fingers may have become greasy
o eating this product may cause thirst

electric hair straightening iron
o not to be used for cooking
o not for use on arm or leg hair
o prolonged exposure may result in an unpleasant burning odour

peanut butter chocolate cups
o do not eat the paper wrapper
o eating this product may cause sticky fingers
o not for consumption by individuals with peanut allergy
MP3 player
o excessive use at high volumes may result in hearing loss
o use of this product in the classroom may result in detention
o may cause uncontrollable foot-tapping

Page 433, Guided Case: Cowles v. Balac, African Lion Safari Ltd.
1. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lowered the windows to take photos of the tigers. If that were
true, do you think the decision in this case would be any different? Explain your answer.
If the plaintiffs lowered the window to take photos of the tigers, such an action is not likely to have
influenced the decision in this case. The key factor is the finding of strict liability. Strict liability applies
when a situation is so inherently dangerous that the defendant is liable regardless of fault on the part of
the plaintiff. In this case, because ALS, the defendant, operated a Safari park containing wild,
unpredictable, and dangerous animals, they would be strictly liable for any injuries caused to visitors.
However, the courts might consider the plaintiff’s behaviour if it was extremely reckless, for example, if
Balac and Cowles had left their car to take photographs.
2. The plaintiffs entered the ALS voluntarily. Should this be a factor in deciding liability? Why or why not?
Students who believe that entering ALS voluntarily should not be a factor might suggest
 visitors to the park do not voluntarily assume the risk of being mauled by the animals
 ALS set out safety rules but they should be able to reasonably foresee that not all visitors would
comply with the rules
Students who believe that entering ALS voluntarily should be a factor might suggest
 visitors to a lion safari voluntarily assume the risk that animals they encounter may be dangerous and
unpredictable
 the plaintiffs were not compelled to enter the park; this was a personal choice
Page 434, Building Your Understanding
1. What is meant by contributory negligence?
Contributory negligence is a partial defence to the extent that the negligent acts of the plaintiff helped to
cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
Use an example to illustrate your answer.
Student examples will vary but should contain negligent actions (or omissions) on the part of the plaintiff
and a cause-in-fact linkage to the plaintiff’s injuries.
2. Identify three defences, other than contributory negligence, that a defendant may use in a tort action.
Defences in a tort action include
 inevitable accident
 act of God
 valid explanation
 statute of limitations
3. A soccer player was seriously injured in a professional soccer game when he was tripped by a player on
the opposing team. Do you think he would be successful if he sued for damages? Why or why not?
It is unlikely that the soccer player would be successful if he sued for damages. The player accepted the
risk of being injured during the game (voluntary assumption of risk). However, if the trip was considered
far outside the normal rules of the game, then a lawsuit may be successful because, it could be argued, the
player did not consent to the risk of being injured outside the normal parameters of the soccer game.
4. In which of the following situations do you think the defence of voluntary assumption of risk would
apply? Explain your choice.
a) A cyclist who refuses to wear a bicycle helmet is injured in an accident.
Yes. Assuming the cyclist’s injuries are as a result of not wearing a helmet, or exacerbated by the lack
of a helmet, then the defence may succeed. However, if the injuries sustained were not related to the
wearing of a helmet, and the defendant was negligent then the defence would not apply.
b) Toma accepts a ride from Sami though she suspects Sami is intoxicated. She is injured in a car accident.
Yes. Toma knowingly and willingly assumed the risks involved in accepting a ride with an intoxicated
driver.
c) Kirsten, who is allergic to cinnamon, purchases a cookie. The cookie does not contain cinnamon but
shared a shelf with cookies that did. Immediately, she has a severe allergic reaction.
No. Kirsten did not inquire whether the cookies were located near cinnamon and the producer of the
cookie would not have been aware of her allergy. The seller may have some liability if Kirsten had
requested a cinnamon-free cookie, or if the bakery had advertised that the cookies were cinnamonfree.
d) Nurul has never watched or played ice hockey. He does not understand the rules of the game. The first
time he is on the ice he is seriously injured.
No. Nurul did not knowingly and willingly assume the risks involved in ice hockey.
5. Distinguish between an inevitable accident and an act of God, and provide an example of each.
The defences of an act of God and an inevitable accident both involve uncontrollable and unforeseeable
events that could not be prevented by any amount of reasonable care.
The distinguishing feature is the nature of the event. An act of God pertains to an extraordinary natural
event such as being struck by lightning, while an inevitable accident involves something other than a
natural event such as crashing a car due to a sudden heart attack.