TORTS LAW
SUMMARY
LAWSKOOL CANADA
TORTS LAW
CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. Case list ................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 6 Negligence ........................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Elements of Tort of Negligence ....................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Duty of Care .................................................................................... 8 2.1.1.1 Step Test ........................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Breach of Duty................................................................................. 8 2.1.2.1 3 Step Test ........................................................................ 8 2.1.3 Damage ........................................................................................... 9 2.1.4 Factual Causation ........................................................................... 9 2.1.5 Remoteness (aka proximate cause).............................................. 10 2.1.6 Complete Defences ....................................................................... 10 2.1.7 Apportionment ............................................................................... 10 2.1.8 Measure of Damages .................................................................... 11 2.1.9 Vicarious Liability........................................................................... 11 Duty of Care ....................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Previously Recognized Relationships ...................................................... 12 3.2 Anns Test.................................................................................................. 14 3.2.1 1st Stage of Anns Test .................................................................. 14 3.2.2 2nd Stage of Anns Test ................................................................. 16 3.3 Summary of Case Ratios – Duty of Care ................................................. 18 3.3.1 Neighbour Principle, Pre-natal Injury, Social Host Liability ........... 18 3.3.2 Supervision and Prevention (Third Party Liability) ........................ 18 3.3.3 Government Liability and Statutes, Negligent Investigation .......... 19 3.3.4 Omissions...................................................................................... 19 3.4 Duty of Care Cases .................................................................................. 20 3.4.1 Omissions...................................................................................... 27 Breach of Duty (Standard of Care)................................................................... 31 4.1 Establish Standard of Care à who is reasonable person? ...................... 31 4.1.1 Exceptions: .................................................................................... 31 4.1.1.1 Mentally ill ........................................................................ 32 4.1.1.2 Child standard ................................................................. 33 4.1.1.3 Physical Disability ............................................................ 33 4.1.1.4 Professionals standard .................................................... 34 4.1.1.5 Superior Knowledge ........................................................ 34 4.2 What is Impugned Conduct? .................................................................... 35 4.3 Unreasonable Risk Formula ..................................................................... 35 4.3.1 Custom .......................................................................................... 36 4.3.1.1 Standard professional practice ........................................ 36 4.3.2 Statutory Breach............................................................................ 37 lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
4.4 5. 6. 7. Summary of Case Ratios – Breach of Duty .............................................. 38 4.4.1 Establish Standard of Care ........................................................... 38 4.4.2 Mentally Incapacitated................................................................... 38 4.4.3 Youth ............................................................................................. 39 4.4.4 Professional Negligence................................................................ 39 4.4.5 Pinpoint Impugned Conduct .......................................................... 40 4.4.6 Unreasonable Risk Formula .......................................................... 40 4.4.7 Custom .......................................................................................... 41 4.4.8 Statutory Negligence ..................................................................... 41 4.5 Breach of Duty Cases ............................................................................... 42 Factual Causation.............................................................................................. 58 5.1 But For Test .............................................................................................. 58 5.2 Tests for Multiple Causes or Multiple Defendants .................................... 58 5.2.1 Knowledge of subject matter especially with one party ................. 58 5.2.2 Two Negligent Defendants, One Cause ........................................ 59 5.2.3 Enterprise Liability (US ONLY, a policy argument in Canada) ...... 59 5.2.4 Multiple Causes ............................................................................. 60 5.3 Summary of Case Ratios – Factual Causation ......................................... 61 5.3.1 But-for test ..................................................................................... 61 5.3.2 Knowledge of subject matter especially with one party ................. 61 5.3.3 Two negligent defendants and only one cause ............................. 61 5.3.4 Enterprise Liability (market-share liability test) .............................. 62 5.3.5 Multiple Causes ............................................................................. 62 5.4 Factual Causation Cases ......................................................................... 63 Remoteness (proximate cause) ....................................................................... 69 6.1 Foreseeability Test for Remoteness ......................................................... 69 6.2 Nervous Shock Cases .............................................................................. 71 6.3 Summary of Case Ratios – Remoteness ................................................. 73 6.3.1 Old Directness test ........................................................................ 73 6.3.2 Foreseeability as test – beginning ................................................. 73 6.3.3 Foreseeability as test – established test ....................................... 73 6.3.4 Nervous Shock .............................................................................. 75 6.4 Remoteness Cases .................................................................................. 76 Defences............................................................................................................. 85 7.1 Apportionment (Partial) Defences ............................................................ 85 7.1.1 Contributory Negligence ................................................................ 85 7.2 Complete Defences – plaintiff denied recovery altogether ....................... 87 7.2.1 Voluntary Assumption of Risk ....................................................... 87 7.2.2 Illegality ......................................................................................... 88 7.3 Summary of Case Ratios – Defences ...................................................... 89 7.3.1 Contributory Negligence ................................................................ 89 lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
8. 7.3.2 Voluntary Assumption of Risk ....................................................... 89 7.3.3 Illegality ......................................................................................... 90 7.4 Defences Cases ....................................................................................... 92 Intentional Torts ................................................................................................ 99 8.1 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF MENTAL SUFFERING.......................... 99 8.1.1 Summary of Case Ratios – Intentional Infliction of Harm ............ 100 8.1.2 Cases – Intentional Infliction of Harm.......................................... 100 8.2 ASSAULT AND BATTERY ..................................................................... 103 8.2.1 Assault......................................................................................... 103 8.2.2 Battery ......................................................................................... 103 8.2.3 Defences to assault and battery include: .................................... 104 8.3 Cases – Intentional Infliction of Harm ..................................................... 105 lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
CASE LIST
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310…………………………...5.4
Arneil v. Paterson [1931] A.C. 560 (H.L.) …………………………………………………………...4.4
Arnold v. Teno (Next friend of), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 ………………………………………………2.4
Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458………………………………………………………………..4.4
Bettel et al. v. Yim, [1978] 20 O.R. (2d) 617…………………………………………………………7.3
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781………………………………...3.5
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078………………………………………………3.5
Brenner v. Gregory, [1973] 1 O.R. 252 (H.C.) …………………………………………………...…3.5
Bruce v Dyer (1966) 58 DLR (2d) 211 (1966) (ON HC) ...…………………………………………7.3
Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East. 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (K.B. 1809)…………………………….6.4
Challand v. Bell (1959), 18 D.L.R. (2d) 150 (Ab. SC) ……………………………………………...3.5
Childs v. Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18………………………………………………………………..2.4
Clark v. Canada ( T.D. ), [1994] 3 F.C. 323……………………………………………………….7.1.2
Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830…………………………………………………………………….4.4
Cooper v. Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537, 2001 SCC 79……………………………………………..2.4
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186………………………….…2.4
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186………………………….…3.5
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186…………………………….6.4
Davies v. Mann, 152 Eng. Rep. 588 (1842) ………………………………………………..……….6.4
Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753…………………………………2.4
Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753…………………………………3.5
Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson [1932] AC 562………………………………………………2.4
Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Limited (1 QB 518 (CA 1963)...………………………….5.4
Dube v Labar (1986), 36 C.C.LT. 105 ( S.C.C.) ………………………………………………...….6.4
Dunsmore v Deshield (1977), 80 DLR (3d) 386 (Sask QB)……………..…………………………2.4
Fiala v. Cechmanek [2001] A.J. No. 823………………………………………………………….…3.5
Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99………………………………….…………………………….7.1.2
Galaske v. O'Donnell, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 670………………………………………………………….6.4
Gorris v Scott (1874) 9 LR Exch 125…………………………………………………………………3.5
Hall v. Hebert, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 159………………………………………………………………...….6.4
Hambley v. Shepley (1967), 63 D.L.R. (2d) 94 (ON C.A.).………………………………………...6.4
Heisler v Moke [1972] 25 DLR (3dl 670 (HC) ………………………………………………………3.5
Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129
Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 S.C.R.
129……………………………………………………………………………………………………….3.5
Horsley v. MacLaren, [1972] S.C.R. 441……………………………………………….……………2.4
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8…………………………………………………………….5.4
Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998), 160 D.L.R.
(4th) 697…………………………………………………………………………………………………2.4
Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1990), 72 D.L.R.
(4th) 580…………………………………………………………………………………………………2.4
Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228………………………………………..……………2.4
lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
Kauffman v. Toronto Transit Commission [1959] O.R. 197………………………………………..4.4
Lambton v. Mellish [1894 L. 1392.] …………………………………………………………………..4.4
Lauritzen v. Barstead (1965) 53 DLR 2d 267 (Atla. S.C.) ………………..……………………….5.4
Marshall v Lionel Enterprises Inc [1972] 2 OR 177………………………………………………...5.4
McErlean v. Sarel (1987), 61 O.R. (2d) 396…………………………………………………………3.5
Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27……………………………………………….5.4
Negligence Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER N.1……………………………………………………….6.4
Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226………………………..……………………………………7.3
Oke v. Weide Tpt. Ltd. [1963] Man CA………………………………………………………………2.4
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The Wagon Mound (No 1)
[1961] UKPC 1………………………………………………………………………………………….5.4
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1
AC 617…………………………………………………………………………………………………..5.4
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) …………………………………..5.4
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1950) BC [1951] HL……………………………………………3.5
Priestman v. Colangelo [1959] S.C.R. 615, 19 DLR (2d) 1……………………………………..…3.5
R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139……………………………………………………………………….5.4
Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union [1984] B.C.J. No. 2790…………………………………….7.1.2
Re Polemis & Furniss, Withy & Co Ltd [, [1921] 3 K.B. 560……………………………………….5.4
Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333……………………………………………………..4.4
Rhodes v CNR(1990)75 D.L.R. (4th) 248 B.C.C.A.) ……………………………………………….5.4
Ryan v. Victoria (City), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201…………………………………………………………3.5
School Division of Assiniboine South No. 3 v. Hoffer et al. [1971] 1 WWR 1……………………5.4
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980) ……………………………………………..4.4
Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 QB 405………………………………………………………....5.4
Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311………………………………………………………………….4.4
ter Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674………………………………………………………….…3.5
The Home Office v. The Dorset Yacht Company Limited [1970] 2 All ER 294.…………………2.4
The Queen in right of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205………….…3.5
United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947) …………………………….…3.5
Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467, 132 E.R. 490 (C.P.)…………………………...…3.5
Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 456……………………………………………………………3.5
Ware's Taxi Ltd. v. Gilliham, [1949] S.C.R. 637………………………………………………….…3.5
Wickberg v Patterson [1997] 4 W.W.R. 591;(1997) 145 D.L.R. (4th) 263 (Alta.C.A.).………….6.4
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. 57…………………………………………………………….7.1.2
Zelenko vs. Gimbel Brothers (1935) 287 N.Y.S. 134…………………………………………….…2.4
lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
1. Introduction
•
A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, which the law will address with an
award of damages
Comparison of Tort Law with Criminal and Contract
Tort Law
Procedural
Onus of
§ plaintiff (injured party)
§ state vs. defendant
Contract Law
§ plaintiff (injured party)
and defendant
and defendant
(accused)—both are
(accused)—both are
private parties
private parties
§ On Balance of
Proof
Criminal Law
probabilities = more
§ beyond a reasonable
§ On Balance of
doubt
probabilities = more
likely than not
Nature of
§ mostly unintentional
conduct
harm (negligence)
Purpose
§ Mainly about
compensation
§ tort has other purpose
(deter future harm)
§ concerned with security
of person, freedom of
likely than not
§ intent is central
§ mainly punishment
§ concerned with security
§ criminal has other
of person, freedom of
purposes too (rehab)
action
§ concerned with security
of person, freedom of
action
action
Remedies
Codification
§ monetary damages,
§ Accused sent to jail
§ guilty party pays
possible injunctions
damages ($), specific
(trespassing)
performance
§ most tort law arises
§ codified
§
§ concerned with state
§ concerned with state
§ concerned with
imposed obligations
imposed obligations
from case law
Source
§ Case law on
negligence states basic
levels of actions for all
lawskool.ca
©
voluntary obligations
TORTS LAW
members of society
Risk
§ can be seen to
allocation
represent a collective
allocation of risk based
on community values
lawskool.ca
©
§ promotes voluntary
allocation of risk
TORTS LAW
2. Negligence
2.1 ELEMENTS OF TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
•
Plaintiff has to establish the following first five elements on a balance of probabilities;
then, burden on defendant to get off the hook by proving next two elements
2.1.1 Duty of Care
•
Whether situation is covered by tort of negligenceà does defendant owe plaintiff duty of
care
Whether the class of person to which the plaintiff belongs owes a duty of care to
o
the class of person to which the defendant belongs
No negligence in the air
o
§
Have to owe duty to person for negligence to apply
§
Limited idea of who owed to duty à very set categories à Donoghue v.
Stevenson opened this up to expand categories
2.1.1.1 Step Test
a) General proximity
§
What general degree of proximity is necessary to establish a duty of care
(by defendant toward plaintiff, generally) for the purpose of claiming
damages à foreseeability of harm
b) Social policy
§
Given acceptable proximity, are there any good reasons why the
damages remedy is not appropriate and just in the general type of
situation involved
2.1.2
•
Breach of Duty
Whether, based on facts, defendant was negligent/breached duty of care -­‐ whether defendant fell below standard of care a reasonable person would
have observed in the circumstances
2.1.2.1 3 Step Test
I.
Determine what a reasonable person would have done in the situation (to
compare defendant)
lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
-­‐ Reasonable person is not average person (i.e. not industry practise, but
reasonable)
II.
Specify the precise action/inaction/pattern of conduct which is being
impugned
III.
Unreasonable Risk Formula: Balance foreseeability of harm to plaintiff and its
extent versus burden of precautions that would have prevented the harm and
the social utility of the defendants impugned conduct [which sides weighs
more heavily = breach or not breach]
-­‐ Ruling as to whether a reasonable person would have acted as the
defendant did
-­‐ Consider from POV of defendant before situation (i.e. risk of harming
plaintiff vs. burden of minimizing risk/social utility of action)
·
Social utility = e.g. ambulance speeding, health care worker
2.1.3 Damage
•
whether plaintiff suffered a type of damage legally recognized by tort of negligence
o
e.g. physical injury/property = legally recognized; psychological = questionable
and harder to prove; pure economic loss = only loss is loss of profits due to
negligence
•
whether it was suffered at a time which makes that damage now actionable
o
i.e. statutory limitation periods
o
varies by provinceà ON à Limitation Act; general limitation of 2 years for every
suit à period starts sometimes when damage occurs, limitation period generally
starts when the damage is held to be discoverable (not require discovery)
2.1.4 Factual Causation
•
Whether as a matter of scientific fact the defendant’s breach can be said to have
caused plaintiffs infringement (and infringement resulted in damage)
o
Use “but-for test” – onus of proof is contentious; heart of tort law
o
Asks “But for the defendants conduct, would the plaintiff’s harm have occurred?”
o
Did breach cause damage ‘in fact’?
lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
2.1.5 Remoteness (aka proximate cause)
•
Whether (strictly on fact) the plaintiff or damage/loss was sufficiently closely linked to
defendant’s conduct to be recoverable
o
Legal policy à limit liability
§
Plaintiff proximity à reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff might suffer
recognized loss
§
Proximity of damage à type of damage and general way it occurred
reasonably foreseeable from defendant’s conduct
§
Intervening cause à anything extremely unusual in sequence of events
(independent cause breaks chain of legal responsibility)
§
Post-injury events à an occurrence post-accident that might limit
defendant’s responsibility for consequential loss
o
Difference in this test and duty of care proximity test à duty of care looks at
general parties (type of persons); in remoteness à look at this specific case (this
plaintiff and this defendant)
o
Did breach cause damage ‘in law’? (or is it too remote?)
2.1.6 Complete Defences
•
Despite satisfying all other elements, there existed circumstances allowing a defence
that excuses payment of damages to plaintiff
o
Exist, but very difficult to establish, b/c courts reluctant to exonerate defendant
for all damages if all the other elements are proven
•
Examples:
o
voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria) à e.g. sign a waiver, sporting
o
illegality (ex trupi causa non oritur action) à if plaintiff was doing something
illegal
§
courts generally reluctant to enforce this b/c not benefiting, just recovering
§
statutory defences (e.g. immunity to public officials—diplomats)
2.1.7 Apportionment
•
Whether award of damages should be reduced because of plaintiff’s contributory
negligence and how damages proportioned between joint defendants
o
lawskool.ca
Comparison of fault
©
TORTS LAW
o
Joint and several liability (each party is responsible for full damages if other
defendant doesn’t pay) à Makes life easier for plaintiff
o
Test for contributory negligence: defendant has to all the same elements plaintiff
has to prove against defendant, except duty of care (breach of duty, damages,
factual causation, proximity, remoteness)
2.1.8 Measure of Damages
•
What sum of money should be awarded to plaintiff as compensation (injury &
punitive)
b. Pecuniary loss – sum for full restitution for monetary losses (lost income &
expenses)
c. Non-pecuniary loss – sum to provide solace for non-monetary damages suffered
(emotional)
d. Aggravated damages – compensatory sum of money to soothe plaintiff for
humiliation, indignation, outrage, fear of repetition created by manner and quality
of defendant’s actions
e. Exemplary or punitive damages – sum to punish or deter defendant
2.1.9 Vicarious Liability
•
Whether another person/institution is vicariously liable for conduct of personal
defendant
o
e.g. employers for employees; owners for operators of vehicle, parents for
children?
lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
3. Duty of Care
Question: Is situation covered by tort of negligence? Is there a duty of care? 1) Is the relationship one between classes of persons where duty recognized before (precedent)? 2) If YES, simple answer; if NO à Anns Test a. 1st stage of test (foreseeability, proximity, relationship policy considerations) i. Consideration of analogies ii. Involves omission? Establish special relationship b. 2nd stage (residual policy considerations) i. Involves government actor or public authority? Apply Just Test 3.1
PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED RELATIONSHIPS
•
Is there an analogy to be made? If YES, make that argument
General Relationships
Business-customer
Crocker v. Sundance – drunk patron hurt in tubing competition
Arnold v. Teno – child hit by car when leaving ice cream truck
Commercial host-
Jordan House – drunk man leaves bar & is hit by car
patron
Crocker v. Sundance – drunk patron hurt in tubing competition
Competition host-
Crocker v. Sundance – drunk patron hurt in tubing competition
participant
Contractual offeror-
Dunsmore v. Deshield – Hardex lenses
offeree
Doctor-patient
Dunsmore v. Deshield – Hardex lenses
Ter Neuzen v. Korn – plaintiff gets HIV from AI procedure
Driver-pedestrian
Arnold v. Teno – child hit by car when leaving ice cream truck
Government actor-
Just v. B.C. – giant boulder falls on car driving on highway
citizen
Jane Doe v. Toronto – balcony rapist (small identifiable group)
Invitor-invitee
Arnold v. Teno - child hit by car when leaving ice cream truck
Just v. B.C. – giant boulder falls on car driving on highway
Lawyer-client
Brennen v. Gregory – Lawyer fails to investigate building
encroaching on next lot
lawskool.ca
©
TORTS LAW
Manufacturer-
Donoghue v. Stevenson – snail in ginger beer
consumer
Dunsmore v. Deshield – Hardex lenses
Parent- child
Arnold v. Teno – child hit by car when leaving ice cream truck
Police-identifiable
Jane Doe v. Toronto – balcony rapist
group
Police-suspect
Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth – police flawed investigation
Retailer-consumer
Donoghue v. Stevenson – snail in ginger beer
Arnold v. Teno - child hit by car when leaving ice cream truck
Dunsmore v. Deshield – Hardex lenses
Taxi driver-(child)
Ware’s Taxi – child falls out door of taxi; no safety latch
patron
Duty to Third Parties
Police-General Public
Jane Doe v. Toronto – balcony rapist
Supervision & Control
Jane Doe v. Toronto – balcony rapist
Home Office v. Dorset Yacht – borstal boys wreck havoc on ship
Arnold v. Teno - child hit by car when leaving ice cream truck
Omissions
Creator of Risk
Oke v. Weide – driver knocked down road sign
Gratuitous undertaking
Zelenko v. Gimbel Bros – started to help, but left in infirmary
Supervision & Control
Crocker v. Sundance – drunk patron hurt in tubing competition
Duty NOT established
Pregnant woman-fetus
Dobson v. Dobson – car accident while pregnant [but 3rd party-fetus
still duty]
Social Host –3rd Users
Childs v. Desormeaux – hold party, guest drunk drives and kills
of Road
♠♠♠♠
To order the complete version of the lawskool Torts Law Summary please
visit www.lawskool.ca
lawskool.ca
©