Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Tort Law Negligence Notes

Law Notes > Torts Notes

This is an extract of our Tort Law Negligence document, which we sell as part of our Torts Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Victoria; University Of Toronto students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Torts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

1

Negligence Flow Chart 1) Is there an existing Duty of Care?
a. Does the case fall into an existing category?
i. existing categories> if yes, then DoC applies, proceed to p. 6:
-physical harm to property or ppl: (Donoghue, Dorset, Kamloops)
-affirmative action (can include non-feasance, Crocker, Childs)
-rescuers (Horsely)
-duty to warn: manufacturers (Dow); doctors (Reibl)
-psych harm (ltd in application > Mustapha, Devji)
-pure economic loss: neg misrep; neg service; dangerous products; rel economic loss; govt liability (Hedley, Hercules)
-no single or unifying characteristic> each new rels must be examined on its own ii.

If no: proceed to step 2

2) Addressing novel claims: (Anns/Kamloops/Cooper)

1. Is there a sufficiently close relationship bw the parties?
a. Reasonable forseeability: is it conceivable to D that their conduct could harm P?
-Donoghue: neighbor principle: reasonable care to avoid harm that is reasonably foreseeable
- Palsgraf, Home Office: DoC found beyond traditional rels, based on foreseeability of harm b. Proximity: factual closeness; acts as a limiting principle i. Is there a sufficient proximity bw the P and D to impose a DoC?
-relational proximity> Donoghue: neighbor> persons directly affected by act that they are reasonably w/in contemplation of D
-social, circumstantial, causal, proximity
-other factors: representations made, expectation and reliance, existence of stautrory obligations (Odhavji) ii. Are there any micro policy concerns relating to proximity/rels that suggest limiting the recognition of DoC?

2. Are there any macro policy concerns to suggest limiting finding of DoC?
(Kamloops/Cooper)
-analysis of the effect on the legal system and society in general (not concerning rels bw parties)
-is govt acting judicially? (scope of duty)
-is an insurance scheme created where one is not warranted? (scope of DMs)
-is there a high cost (scope of DMs)?
-would indeterminate liability be created? (floodgates concerns; relates to scope of class of persons owed DoC)
-is there frustration of parliamentary intent?
-is there any relevant statutory concerns?
-is there denial of essential public services?

2

-is another field of law more appropriate resolution to the matter? Is there already an est legal remedy?
-is there a lack of evidence?
3) Is the Standard of Care breached?
-what would a reasonably prudent person do in similar circumstances?
a. Potential Limiting Factors: i. Probability of Harm
-risk must be probable, not possible (Bolton)
-greater the risk associated; the higher the standard (Bolton) ii. Severity of Harm
-the greater the potential harm associated with risk; greater the standard (Paris) iii. Cost of Risk Avoidance/ Remedial Measures
-assessed on what steps reasonable person would take knowing gravity of consequences and P's circumstances: failure to take precautionary measures to avoid injury may be unreasonable where the risk harmed to P is serious (Paris)
-learned hand formula: if probability of harm and seriousness of loss outweigh cost of remedial measures, then failure to adopt measures will be seen as breach of SoC (Rentway) iv. Social Utility/Value of Conduct

1. D may be excused if the value of actions are socially important>
e.g. emergency situation> lower standard (Watt) b. Assessment of Reasonableness that Informs SoC:
- objective analysis: reasonably prudent person in D's field of trade (but does not take D's subjective qualities into account)
-is context contingent (Warren)
-the following indices inform but do not solely determine SoC: i. custom of trade:
-typically used by Ds to attempt to negate SoC
- informs SoC> to apply it must be reasonable, apply to the context (Warren)
-likewise, failure to meet does not = breach if circumstances where unusual, custom is inconsistent, uncommonly used or unreasonable >
(Brown; Warren; Waldick) ii. statutory standards:
-P must show that i) D violated statute; ii) statute applies (both thru scope of persons and context/accident) (Gorris)
-standard must be reasonable to apply (Sask Wheat)
-compliance w/statute will likely only negate liability if statute is specific, not general (Ryan) iii. professional standards:
-higher standard is applied to those advertising as having a special skill

3

-lawyers: need only act in accordance w/general practice unless practice is inconsistent w/prudent precautions against a known risk (Brenner); only liable for unreasonable mistakes (Folland)
-doctors: a reasonable; prudent and diligent doctor in the same area of specialization; if professional standard is unreasonable or fraught w/risks, D is held to higher SoC (Ter Neuzen) c. Special Standards of Care:
-modified objective standard: reasonable person in D's circumstance i. Children
-mixed 2 part test: (Heisler) i) determine if child is capable of negligence based on their age, capacity, etc. (subjective) ii) assess if child was negligent and to what degree based on comparison if D exercised the same care expected of a kid of that age/ intelligence/ experience (objective)?
-if undertaking an adult activity, they will be held to an adult standard (Pope; Nespolon) ii. Mentally ill
-held to the standard of a reasonable person with that same disability
-strict liability does not apply (Fiala)
-to negate liability, D must show they lacked either: (Fiala) 1) capacity to understand DOC owed 2) volition- no control over their actions 4) Causation
-did D's breach of SoC actually cause the loss (DMs)?
-factual causation> bw D's conduct and P's injury (objective)
-legal causation> addresses remoteness and proximity; limits factual causation a. But For Causation:
-traditional approach
-if harm would have occurred despite D's actions, causation not est
-BoP rests w/P (Snell)
-need only be de minimis range; not ltd by non-tortious acts (Athey) b. Exceptions- Causal Indeterminacy (when but-for does not apply): i. Inferring causation:
-causation can be inferred when there is an absence of evidence by D (but does not shift BoP) (Snell) ii. Material contribution test:
-in instance of evidentiary gap, where it is impossible to determine on the evidence if it was actually the D's conduct or some other factor (Walker Estate)
-applies if D contributed to harm, played a role outside de minimus range

4

iii. Multiple wrongdoers:
-where it is unclear which D caused harm, cts will apportion liability (Cook)
-BoP shifts to D

c. Legal Causation: Remoteness of DM
-is the consequence reasonably foreseeable?
-D is only liable for DMs which were reasonably forseeable (Wagon Mound) and those which have a -proximate connection bw negligence and DM
-concerns facts of particular case
-acts as a way of limiting expansive DoC
-often assessed based on judicial policy, institution (Osbourne)
-factors: foreseeability, probability, seriousness, degree, financial status of parties (Klar)
- possibility: looking at sequences of events; ask was each step foreseeable (Assiniboine School)
-type of injury need only by foreseen, not extent of DM or exact manner of occurrence (Hoffer, Hughes, Saanich, Assinboine, Lauritzen)
-exception to remoteness: thin skull rule:
-as long as SOME physical injury to P was foreseeable, D is liable for all consequences arising from P's unique physical/psychological makeup (Bishop)
-exception> psychiatric harm: assumed reasonable fortitude (Mustapha)
-crumbling skull rule:
-opposite of thin skull, asserts remoteness in assessment of DMs (does not negate liability)
-goal is to unjustly enrich P but only return them to original position
-assume thin skull, D may refute w/crumbling skull> must prove high degree of inevitability of DM based on already manifested injury, that DM would have occurred independent of D's negligence (Athey)
-NAI:
-intervening can serve to negate liability of original act if it was not reasonably foreseeable; if it is not w/in risk of 1st act (Bradford)
-ct is wary of applying (Smith, Goodware, Stansbie)
-typically used to apportion DMs, not excuse liability 5) Defences
-focus is on Ps conduct that may limit or exclude Ds liability
-cts typically very wary of complete defenses (VAR, illegality) and prefer contrib negallows apportionment according to fault, based on desire for deterrence i. contributory negligence
-P is partially responsible for their injuries:
-P caused accident
-P put themselves in way of D's foreseeable harm
-P failed to take protective measures
- results in apportionment of DMs bw P and D
-arbitrary, lenient bc of lack of 1st party insurance

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts Notes.

More Torts Samples