Duplicate
Export
Register
Torts Outline.pdf Flashcards
1 Flashcard Deck
Torts Outline.pdf Flashcards
Study
Does rebuilding a house with a higher wall that causes a neighbor's chimney to smoke violate the Latin maxim or common law rule of having a right to light and air for 20 years?
No, it does not violate the Latin maxim or common law rule as it was within the property bounds of the owner.
In the case of Prah v Maretti involving solar panels blocking sunlight, was there a nuisance claim?
Yes, there was a nuisance claim. The plaintiff must endure some inconvenience without curtailment of the defendant's freedom of action.
In the case of TH Critelli Ltd v Lincoln Trusts and Savings Co, where construction on the defendant's roof caused damage to the plaintiff's roof, was there a nuisance claim?
Yes, there was a nuisance claim. The judge considered the intentions and knowability of causing damage to the plaintiff's roof before construction.
In the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf regarding TV transmission interference, was the interference considered a nuisance?
No, the court dismissed the case stating that something needed to be emanating from the defendant's land to constitute a nuisance.
In the case of Shuttleworth v Vancouver General Hospital, was there an action for nuisance based on infection fears?
No, there was no action for nuisance as nuisance law requires an actual or real danger, not just potential fears.
In the case of Laws v Florinplace involving a hard core porn shop, was an injunction granted based on nuisance claims?
Yes, an injunction was granted. Nuisance can occur when the defendant's use of property is offensive to ordinary people and residents.
In the case of Bamford v Turnley regarding brick making nuisance claims, what was the takeaway?
The principle of give and take, live and let live applies. The court considers common and ordinary uses of property to determine nuisance claims.
In the case of Miller v Jackson involving a cricket field next to a house, was there a nuisance claim?
Yes, there was a nuisance claim. The court assessed the balance between quiet enjoyment and community benefits of the cricket field.
What is the issue in the case of Miller v Jackson cricket?
Is there a nuisance claim? Is there a negligence claim?
What was Lord Denning's conclusion in Miller v Jackson cricket case regarding nuisance?
No nuisance. He viewed the cricket field as a huge public benefit to the community.
What was the conclusion in the case of Sturges v Bridgeman confectioner regarding nuisance?
A nuisance was created based on the circumstances.
What was the issue in the case of Tock v St Johns Metropolitan Board regarding a flooded basement?
Was the water a nuisance?
In Tock v St Johns Metropolitan Board case, what was the takeaway regarding statutory authority and nuisance claims?
If the statute authorizes the nuisance, there is no recovery unless there was negligence and no alternative way to do the work.
What was the issue in Antrim Truck Centre Ltd v Ontario truck stop case regarding interference with land use?
Was there a claim of nuisance due to permanent interference with the use of land?
What was the key takeaway from Coventry v Lawrence damages case regarding awarding damages or injunctions?
The historical Shelfer rule should consider public interest and allow for judicial discretion in awarding damages instead of injunctions.
What are the elements of negligence that the plaintiff must prove according to the structure mentioned?
Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Cause in Fact, Proximate Cause
What is the Shelfer Rule regarding injunctions and damages substitution?
If it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction, damages may be given in substitution for an injunction.
Why should courts be allowed to exercise discretion in granting injunctions?
Injunctions are a form of equitable remedy, and courts should be allowed to exercise discretion.
What factors should the Shelfer Rule consider according to the text?
The public interest, such as when a business may have to shut down and employees would lose their livelihood or when many people other than the plaintiff are affected by the nuisance.
What must the plaintiff prove in a negligence structure case?
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty by falling below the Standard of Care, Cause in Fact, Proximate Cause, and that the injury was of the right sort (injury to legal rights).
What is the Test Cooper used for in negligence cases?
To determine if the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant gives rise to a Duty of Care, considering reasonable foreseeability and proximity between the parties.
What are the two conceptions of reasonable foreseeability mentioned in the text?
Narrower conception (normal risks associated with the activity) and Broader conception (anything that becomes possible, no matter how unlikely).
What duty can initial negligent defendants owe to the ultimate consumer according to the text?
Initial negligent defendants can owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even if there was an opportunity for intermediate inspection.
In the case of Vaughan v Menlove, what was the issue and the takeaway regarding the standard of care for negligence?
Issue: Should M be held to the reasonable person standard of care or his own judgment? Takeaway: The standard of care for negligence is what a person of ordinary prudence would observe.
What was the issue in Buckley v Smith Transport regarding an insane delusion and negligence?
The issue was whether the insane delusion of the employee could excuse the negligence in causing the accident.
Can initial negligent defendants owe a duty of care to Ps even if there was an opportunity for intermediate inspection?
Yes, they can.
What was the issue in the case of Clay Vaughan v Menlove hayrick?
Should M be held to the reasonable person standard of care or his own judgement?
What is the takeaway from the case of Buckley v Smith Transport insanity?
You are held to the standard of ordinary prudence if you have the capacity to understand and discharge that duty.
In the case of Roberts v Ramsbottom stroke, did Ramsbottom fall below the standard of care of a reasonable driver?
Yes, he did.
What was the issue in the case of Masfield v Weetabix hypoglycemia?
Did the trucker fall below the standard of care due to hypoglycemia?
Bolton v Stone cricket - Issue
Was there a risk of injury when S was walking past the cricket pitch fence and got injured by a ball that went over the fence?
Bolton v Stone cricket - Takeaway
Consider 3 categories of risk: Is the risk fantastic/far-fetched, would a reasonable person take precautions, assess the cost of reasonable precautions in relation to probability and seriousness of injury, social value of the activity, and cost of preventative measures.
Wagon Mound No 2 oil - Issue
Did M neglect a risk when oil spilled into the harbor and caused damage after being ignited by molten metal?
Wagon Mound No 2 oil - Takeaway
Neglecting a risk of small magnitude is unjustifiable; a reasonable person would only neglect such a risk with valid reasons.
Latimer v AEC factory floor - Issue
Was the respondent negligent in not taking precautions on the factory floor, leading to an injury when L slipped and fell?
Latimer v AEC factory floor - Takeaway
The appellant failed to show that a reasonably careful employer would have shut down the works; the only reasonable alternative would have been to close the factory, which was deemed excessive.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council artificial lake - Issue
Did the council fail to take reasonable precautions regarding the artificial lake in the park, leading to T's neck injury when he dove in?
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council artificial lake - Takeaway
Consider the social value of the risky activity, assess the cost of reasonable precautions, and whether the council should allow individuals to decide for themselves whether to take the risk.
Winterbottom v Wright mail coach - Issue
Did WR owe WB a duty of care in supplying the mail coach that resulted in WB's injury due to its bad condition?
Winterbottom v Wright mail coach - Takeaway
There was no direct contractual relationship between WR and WB, indicating no duty of care; Fleming Law of Torts may support expanding the scope of duty of care claims.
McAlister or Donaghue v Stevenson ginger beer - Issue
Did the manufacturer owe a duty of care to consumers after D found a snail in the ginger beer bottle purchased by a friend?
McAlister or Donaghue v Stevenson ginger beer - Takeaway
The manufacturer owed a duty of care to consumers to ensure products were safe; the principle of 'loving your neighbour' implies a legal duty not to cause harm to others.
What is the issue in the case of WR and WB regarding a Direct Obligations Contract (DOC)?
Does WR owe WB a DOC?
What was the takeaway from the case of WR and WB regarding a Direct Obligations Contract (DOC)?
No direct contractual relationship existed, so there was no DOC. Fleming Law of Torts suggested allowing more people to bring DOC claims could benefit society.
In the case of Donaghue v Stevenson, what was the main issue regarding the manufacturer's duty of care to consumers?
Does the manufacturer owe a DOC to consumers of their products?
What was the key takeaway from the case of Donaghue v Stevenson regarding the manufacturer's duty of care to consumers?
Manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer to ensure there were no noxious elements in the goods, as they were difficult to inspect.
What principle was emphasized in the case of Donaghue v Stevenson regarding duty of care to others?
The principle of 'To love your neighbour' is a law that one must not injure their neighbour. It defines 'neighbour' as persons directly affected by one's actions.
In Watson v Buckley, what was the issue regarding the liability of a distributor and a manufacturer for a product issue?
Can a distributor and a manufacturer be held liable for the same issue?
What was the takeaway from Watson v Buckley regarding the liability of a distributor and a manufacturer for a product issue?
A distributor can owe a duty of care to consumers even if the manufacturer also owes one, particularly if the initial tortious act was by the manufacturer.
In Clay v AJ Crump, what was the issue regarding a defendant's duty of care despite opportunities for inspection?
Could a defendant owe a duty of care even if there were opportunities for intermediate inspection?
What was the key takeaway from Clay v AJ Crump regarding a defendant's duty of care despite opportunities for inspection?
A defendant can owe a duty of care to a plaintiff even if there were opportunities for inspection, emphasizing the responsibility to take care.
In Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad, what was the main issue concerning duty of care owed by the railroad to the plaintiff?
Does LIRR owe P a duty of care?
What was the takeaway from Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad regarding duty of care and negligence?
Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest. Negligence is defined and limited by the duty of care owed to specific individuals.
In Cooper v Hobart Registrar of Mortgage Brokers, what were the facts of the case?
C is an investor.
What makes an action risky in the first place from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes?
The ambit of the duty of care the defendant owes to other people.
In the case of Kamloops v Nielsen, what is the 2-stage test to determine if a private law duty of care exists?
1. Is there a close relationship between the parties where carelessness might cause damage? 2. Are there any considerations to limit the duty, class of persons owed, or damages that may arise?
In Cooper v Hobart Registrar of Mortgage Brokers, what is the issue regarding the duty of care owed by the Registrar to investors?
Whether the Registrar owes a private law duty of care to members of the investing public for economic losses sustained.
In Brown v Canada 60s Scoop, what duty of care is alleged to have been breached by Canada in the context of the 1965 agreement?
Breach of a fiduciary or common law duty of care to prevent the loss of aboriginal identity of the class members.
In Rankins Garage stolen car case, what was the key issue regarding the duty of care owed by the business to the injured party?
Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that someone could be injured by the stolen vehicle, in addition to the theft itself.
In the case of In Re Polemis and Furness Withy Co, what was the central issue regarding the damage caused by the fire on the ship?
Whether the damage caused by the fire was too remote from the initial leakage of petrol due to rough weather.
What duty does a business owe to an injured party following the theft of a vehicle?
Business will only owe a duty to someone who is injured following the theft of a vehicle when in addition to theft, the unsafe operation of the stolen vehicle was reasonably foreseeable.
According to the case of Re Polemis and Furness Withy Co, what was the issue at hand regarding the damage caused by the negligent act?
a) Issue: Was this damage too remote?
What was the key takeaway from the case of Re Polemis and Furness Withy Co regarding liability for damages caused by a negligent act?
Takeaway: Once there is an initial negligent act, you are liable for all the damage, regardless of foreseeability.
What was the central issue in the case of FW Jeffrey and Sons Ltd and Finlayson v Copeland Flour Mills Ltd regarding liability for damage to connected buildings?
Issue: Can C be liable for the damage to the connected but not dug up buildings?
In the case of Wagon Mound No 1, what was the key takeaway regarding liability for unforeseeable consequences of an act?
Takeaway: People should only be responsible for the probable consequences of their acts, not unforeseeable and serious consequences.
What was the scenario in the case of Smith v Leech Brain Co Ltd involving molten metal and worker safety?
LB owned a steel plant and left their workers unprotected from removing galvanized items from the molten metal tank, leading to a worker being splashed with molten metal.
What was the situation in the Takeaway Here case involving K and the fire extinguisher?
The situation unfolded outside the risk created by K, specifically with grease buildup causing a fire and injuring people or causing panic, not the extinguisher causing panic.
In the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd, who were the parties involved and what was the issue?
The party involved were borstal trainees supervised by borstal officers. The issue was whether the Home Office or the borstal officers owed a Duty of Care to the respondents.
What was the takeaway from the Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd case regarding liability and indeterminate liability?
To limit liability and avoid indeterminate liability, courts may define Duty of Care more narrowly and look to intervening acts.
What was Lord Reid's perspective on the liability in the Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd case?
Lord Reid stated that the Home Office would be vicariously liable if the carelessness of the borstal officers resulted in damage caused by the trainees.
According to Viscount Dilhorne, when is an act not considered a novus actus in relation to Duty of Care?
An act is not a novus actus if it is very likely to happen, natural, and probable, rather than merely foreseeable.
In the Lamb v London Borough of Camden case, what was the issue and the takeaway from the judgment?
The issue was the responsibility to avoid damage to the house. The takeaway was to consider policy and liability in cases of damage caused by negligent actions.
What was the key takeaway from the Saadati v Moorhead case regarding liability for mental injury?
Claimants are not required to show a recognizable psychiatric illness for recovery of mental injury. Psychiatric and physical harms should be treated with similar respect.
In the case of Mustapha v Culligan, what was the requirement adopted by the SCC for mental distress claims?
The SCC adopted the requirement of ordinary fortitude to assess if a mental injury would have occurred in a person of ordinary fortitude given the defendant's negligence.
What was the issue in the Harnicher v University of Utah Medical Center case and the court's decision?
The issue was whether H could recover for mental distress due to IVF mix-up. The court dismissed the action as the alleged negligence was not shown to likely cause severe emotional distress in a reasonable person.
In the Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust case, what negligence issue arose regarding frozen sperm?
The institution negligently allowed the frozen sperm to defrost, rendering it unusable for men about to undergo chemotherapy.
What is the takeaway from Harnicher v University of Utah Medical Center fertility clinic case?
Court dismissed the action on the ground that the alleged negligence was not shown to have been of a type that would likely cause severe emotional distress in a reasonable person normally constituted.
What is the takeaway from Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust frozen sperm case?
Sperm was the property of the claimants, and NHS, having breached the terms of the bailment, was liable for the emotional distress caused by the negligence.
In Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital Management Committee, was the doctor considered the factual cause of death?
No, Dr. failed the but for test because even if doctor had not been grossly negligent, the patient would have died anyways due to timing.
Can multiple defendants be liable for the same noise in the case of Lambton v Mellish organs?
Yes, if the actionable offence is the aggregate of two smaller offences, and they know of each other's existence, then each is liable for the remedy against the aggregate complaint.
In Corey v Havener motor tricycles case, could the aggregate but for test be applied?
No, the aggregate test cannot be applied where tortfeasors are not acting together or do not know what the other would do. Each tortfeasor must contribute to the injury to be liable.
Is NWR liable for the damage from the unknown fire in Kingston v Chicago and NW Railway merged fires case?
Yes, NWR is liable as permitting each wrongdoer to plead the wrong of the other as a defense would penalize the innocent party who has been damaged by their wrongful acts.
What is the takeaway from Sunrise Co v Lake Winnipeg grounding case?
With successive causes, the nature of the second casualty is often irrelevant if all damage had been done at the time of the first collision.
Can a party recover despite having a pre-existing disposition in Athey v Leonati auto accidents disc herniation case?
Yes, pre-existing back injuries do not negate the defendant's liability.
What is the issue in Sunrise Co v Lake Winnipeg grounding case?
Is LW responsible for the loss for 27 days
What is the takeaway from Sunrise Co v Lake Winnipeg case?
With successive causes, the nature of the second casualty tortious or otherwise is often irrelevant if at the time of the first all damage had been done
What is the dissenting opinion in Sunrise Co v Lake Winnipeg case?
Assumption that damage lost profits crystallizes while the ship is in dry dock which didn't occur until after the second grounding
What is the issue in Athey v Leonati case?
Can A recover from L despite this being a pre-existing disposition
What is the takeaway from Athey v Leonati case?
Pre-existing back injuries do not negate D's fault; material contribution test must be used if acts alone could have caused the injury
What is the issue in Cook v Lewis hunters case?
Which D should be held liable if the cause is uncertain
What is the takeaway from Cook v Lewis hunters case?
In an uncertain situation, the onus shifts onto the D to prove they did not contribute because they have more information about the situation
What is the issue in Sindell v Abbott Laboratories DES case?
Can D be liable even if they may have not been the one to sell the drug to that mother
What is the takeaway from Sindell v Abbott Laboratories DES case?
Market share liability works here and is fair because each D has the ability to pay; deep pocket theory is against public policy
What is the issue in McGhee v National Coal Board case?
If there are tortious and non-tortious causes, to what extent can D be held liable
What is the takeaway from McGhee v National Coal Board case?
D will be liable if they materially contribute to P's risk of injury; even if D increases the risk a little, they can be liable for the whole injury
What is the issue in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority case?
With multiple independent causes, how much is D liable
What is the takeaway from Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority case?
When there are multiple independent causes, P must prove but for negligence unless there is another cause
What is the issue in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services case?
Which D could be held liable for mesothelioma in the absence of proof of factual cause
What extent can a defendant be held liable if there are tortious and non-tortious causes?
Defendant can be held liable if they materially contribute to the plaintiff's risk of injury. Even if the defendant increases the risk a little, they can be liable for the whole injury.
In Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority, what was the issue and takeaway from the case involving a premature infant?
Issue: With multiple independent causes, how much is the defendant liable? Takeaway: When there are multiple independent causes, the plaintiff must prove but-for negligence unless there is another cause. If factors were not cumulative, it was either the defendant's negligence or some other non-tortious condition based on the baby's prematurity.
What was the issue and takeaway from Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services regarding mesothelioma?
Issue: Which defendant could be held liable? Takeaway: Multiple defendants can be held liable for an injury if their negligence led to one of numerous tortious causes and it cannot be determined what actually caused the injury. This may overcompensate the plaintiff but is preferable to denying recovery.
In Clements v Clements, what was the issue and takeaway from the case involving a motorbike accident?
Issue: Did the husband's negligence cause the wife's injury? Takeaway: Yes, the husband is liable. The goal of tort law requires that the defendant not be permitted to escape liability by pointing the finger at another wrongdoer. Responding to overuse of the material contribution test by courts, a robust and pragmatic approach must be taken to determine if the plaintiff has established the defendant's negligence caused their loss.
What are some defences that a defendant can raise in a tort case?
Defences that a defendant can raise include contributory negligence by the plaintiff (partial defence), voluntary assumption of risk by the plaintiff (complete defence), and illegality on the part of the plaintiff (complete defence but doesn't often apply).
What is the concept of wrongful life in legal terms?
The concept of wrongful life refers to a situation where a child is born with disabilities, and the claim is made that, had it not been for the negligence of a third party, the child would not have been born at all.
What is the main issue surrounding wrongful birth cases?
The main issue in wrongful birth cases is the causation problem - whether the negligence of the doctor really caused the parent not to terminate the pregnancy.
What is the focus of wrongful pregnancy cases?
Wrongful pregnancy cases revolve around the negligence that occurred prior to conception, such as failed sterilization, leading to the birth of a healthy child and the costs associated with raising that child.
In the case of MacKay v Essex Area Health Authority, what was the central argument regarding the claim for wrongful life?
The central argument was that there was no claim for wrongful life as the child had not been injured by the defendants but by the rubella virus which infected the mother, and the claim for wrongful life implies that the child's life with severe disabilities is not worth living.
What was the outcome of the case Zaitsov v Katz regarding an infant with a disability?
The outcome was that the claim against life with a defect was dismissed, as the only alternative presented was life without a defect, and the infant does not have a right to non-life.
In Paxton v Ramji concerning the prescription of Accutane, what was the key issue addressed?
The key issue was whether a doctor owes a tort law duty of care to a future child who is subsequently born with defects, and the conclusion was that there is no duty of care to a born-alive child with defects.
What was the case Kealey v Berezowski about and what was the main issue raised?
The case involved a negligently performed tubal ligation that resulted in pregnancy, and the main issue was whether the doctor was liable for the cost of pregnancy or child-rearing, with the court ruling compensation only for the unplanned pregnancy and resulting stress, not for child-rearing.
In the case McFarlane v Tayside Health Board regarding a vasectomy, what costs associated with an unplanned pregnancy were deemed recoverable?
The costs associated with discomfort and extra expenses related to the pregnancy were deemed recoverable, but not the costs of maintaining the child, respecting the parents' reproductive autonomy over family planning.
Is Issue D liable for the cost of pregnancy or child rearing?
D is liable only for compensation for the unplanned pregnancy and resulting stress/loss of income, not for child rearing. Amount of damages depends on how the injury is characterized.
In the case McFarlane v Tayside Health Board (vasectomy), what costs associated with an unplanned pregnancy are recoverable?
Recovery was allowed for the discomfort and extra costs of pregnancy, but not for the costs of maintaining the child. Law should respect reproductive autonomy over when to have more children.
In the case Cattanach v Melchior (negligent advice), can C recover the costs of child rearing?
AUHC allowed the parents to recover the costs of raising a child from the negligent defendant. The burden of raising a child was not chosen by the parents.
In the case Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust, can P recover child rearing costs?
Yes, P is entitled to the child rearing costs. Rights to bodily integrity include the right to make choices about one's body and autonomy.
What test is used in cases of negligent misrepresentation like Deloitte v Livent?
The test considers proximity prior to foreseeability. It evaluates if there is a close and direct relationship between the parties to impose a duty of care on the defendant towards the plaintiff.
What are the considerations in the negligent misrepresentation test regarding reliance on the representation?
Consider the purpose for which the representation was made, the corresponding reliance of the plaintiff, and whether the reliance was reasonable. Reliance must be reasonably foreseeable for a duty of care to be imposed.
What are the residual policy considerations in the negligent misrepresentation test?
External policy considerations such as whether the law already provides a remedy and whether recognizing a duty of care would lead to unlimited or indeterminate liability. Only in rare cases should a duty of care not be found for policy reasons.
What must be considered for a representation to be reasonably foreseeable?
The purpose for which D made the representation and the corresponding reliance of P. Reliance must be reasonable, and it should not be reasonably foreseeable for P to rely on D for purposes other than the one for which D represented.
What are the residual policy considerations external to the relationship between parties in determining duty of care?
1. Does the law already provide a remedy? 2. Would recognizing this Duty of Care raise the spectre of unlimited liability to an unlimited class (indeterminate liability)? 3. Other reasons of broad policy, such as temporal uncertainty, claimant uncertainty, and treating D unfairly.
What is the test for liability for negligent misrepresentation in the case of Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller?
1. There must be a relationship of trust between the parties. 2. D must have undertaken a duty to exercise care when making the statement. 3. D knew or ought to have known that P would rely on the information/advice. 4. P's reliance must have been reasonable.
In Glanzer v Shepard, what was the issue and takeaway regarding a duty of care to a third party without a contract?
Issue: Does D have a duty of care to not cause economic harm by misrepresenting information to a 3rd party they don't have a contract with? Takeaway: Yes, one who follows a common calling may come under a duty to another whom he serves, though a third party may give the order or make the payment.
What was the outcome and takeaway in Ultramares v Touche regarding a public accountant's duty of care in providing information for a loan?
Outcome: No liability as it is limited to those who the D knows the information will be given to, with nothing communicated about the number or extent of transactions. Takeaway: Court fears liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.
In Grand Restaurants of Canada Ltd v City of Toronto, what was the issue and takeaway regarding reliance on the city's assurance for a property purchase?
Issue: Was GRC contributorily negligent? Takeaway: Yes, a reasonable person with the plaintiff's experience would have been sufficiently alerted by prior knowledge to make further investigations before closing the transaction. If P has reasonably relied on D, P can still be contributorily negligent.
What was the issue and outcome in Steel v NRAM regarding negligent misrepresentation by a solicitor for a property company?
Issue: Is NRAM the solicitor liable for negligent misrepresentation? Outcome: No, it was not reasonable for the lender to rely solely on the solicitor's statement without verifying its accuracy. Commercial lenders should confirm the terms of agreements themselves, especially when easily accessible.
What is the issue in the case of GRC being aware of prior work orders and building violations?
a) Was GRC contributorily negligent?
What is the takeaway from the case of GRC and prior work orders and violations?
A reasonable person with the plaintiff's experience should have investigated further before closing the transaction if aware of such issues.
In the case of Steel v NRAM solicitor for property company, what was the mistake made by the solicitor (D) that led to an issue?
D mistakenly informed the lender that the entire loan was being paid off, causing the lender to release the charge on all units.
Is NRAM, the solicitor, liable for negligent misrepresentation in the case of Steel v NRAM solicitor for property company?
No. It is not reasonable for the lender to rely solely on the solicitor's statement without verifying its accuracy.
What is the scenario in the case of Queen v Cognos Inc major project where a negligent misrepresentation occurred?
C hired Q for a project, but funding was not secured, leading to Q being fired.
In the case of Haig v Bamford audited financial statement, what was the mistake made by the accountant firm (B) that led to an issue?
The audited financial statements prepared by B overstated the income, causing H to lose his investment.
Does B owe a duty of care to not make negligent misrepresentations to specific investors in the case of Haig v Bamford audited financial statement?
Yes, B owes a duty of care to the class of people who will rely on the statements, not each particular person.
What is the issue in the case of Deloitte Touche v Livent Inc regarding financial records manipulation?
Did D breach a duty of care owed to L in failing to detect the fraud?
What is the takeaway from the case of Deloitte Touche v Livent Inc regarding manipulated financial records?
D breached the duty of care by not identifying the fraud, leading to the company's failure.
What is the main argument against a presumptive ban according to the Maj?
The main argument is that the plaintiff (P) is better able to predict the losses and get insurance, which would spread the loss across society better.
In Martel Building Ltd v Canada, what types of cases can give rise to economic loss recovery?
1. Negligent misrepresentation 2. Negligent performance of a service 3. Negligent supply of shoddy goods or structures 4. Relational economic loss, where the claimant has some proprietary/possessory interest in the damaged property.
In the case of Winnipeg Condominium Corp No 36 v Bird Construction Co, what was the issue and takeaway?
Issue: Can W recover the cost of repairs from B? Takeaway: Yes, as long as the building poses a real and substantial danger, contractors have a duty of care to subsequent purchasers to ensure the building is not a danger to health and safety.
What was the ruling in Murphy v Brentwood District Council regarding negligent approval of housing plans?
The ruling was that in the absence of a contractual duty or special relationship, a builder owes no duty of care in respect of the quality of their work unless the building poses a danger to neighboring land.
In Bryant v Maloney, what was the issue and takeaway regarding a negligent house builder?
Issue: Can M recover from B for the cost of repairing the bad footings? Takeaway: Yes, a builder has a duty of care to subsequent purchasers of a building, and P can recover even if it doesn't pose a risk.
What was the outcome in 1688782 Ontario Inc v Maple Leaf Foods Inc regarding a meat recall and economic loss?
The outcome was that Maple Leaf Foods Inc did not owe a duty of care and P could not recover for economic loss.
Who sues builder B for negligence because the house has bad footings?
M, the third owner of the house.
Issue: Can M recover from B for the cost of repairing the bad footings?
Yes, M can recover as the builder has a Duty of Care to subsequent purchasers of a building.
In the case of 1688782 Ontario Inc v Maple Leaf Foods Inc, who brings a class action for economic loss due to their exclusive contract for deli meats from MLF?
Mr. Sub franchisees.
Issue: Does MLF owe a Duty of Care in the case of economic loss?
No, MLF does not owe a Duty of Care with respect to reputational harms or economic loss.
What is the general rule regarding liability for nonfeasance versus misfeasance?
Liability only for misfeasance (wrongful risk creation) and not for mere failure to prevent harm (nonfeasance).
In Union Pacific v Cappier, what is the outcome regarding the behavior of UP's employees towards E who is run over by the train?
The employees' behavior did not amount to wrongful risk creation as they were not liable for neglecting to aid the trespasser in their injuries.
In Oke v Weide Transport, what is the conclusion regarding W's actions after knocking down a sign on the highway?
W committed nonfeasance (no liability) for failure to prevent harm as the subsequent accident was unforeseeable.
In Moch Co v Rensselaer Water Co, what was the issue regarding the hydrants and the warehouse fire?
The issue was whether R committed nonfeasance (no liability) for failing to provide enough water to extinguish the fire.
Issue in the case of W and O
Did W commit a nonfeasance (no liability failure to prevent harm) or a misfeasance (liability wrongful risk creation)?
Takeaway from the case of W and O
No duty to inform authorities when one creates a risk but the subsequent accident is unforeseeable, this is a nonfeasance with no liability.
Case: Moch Co v Rensselaer Water Co hydrants
R was contracted by the city to keep hydrants full, but there was not enough water to extinguish a fire in M's warehouse.
Issue in the case of R and M
Did R commit a nonfeasance (no liability failure to prevent harm) or a misfeasance (liability wrongful risk creation)?
Takeaway from the case of R and M
Failure to provide water was a nonfeasance. Failure to provide water is the denial of a benefit, not the commission of a wrong.
Case: Childs v Desormeaux social host
DC and JZ hosted a BYOB party where Desormeaux, a heavy drinker, left and caused an accident killing one and injuring Childs.
Issue in the case of Childs v Desormeaux
Do social hosts owe a Duty of Care to the public injured by their guests?
Takeaway from the case of Childs v Desormeaux
No duty, but it may be different if hosts continue to serve someone clearly inebriated.
Case: Depue v Flatau et al guest
D, a cattle purchaser, visited F's farm, fainted, was denied to stay the night, found almost frozen to death on the side of the road.
Issue in the case of Depue v Flatau
Was the duty breached due to nonfeasance or misfeasance?
Takeaway from the case of Depue v Flatau
Misfeasance. Duty upon the owner of premises who invite people in to ensure they are reasonably safe.
Case: Just v Queen in Right of British Columbia highway maintenance
Boulder falls and kills J's daughter after heavy snowfall, the department of highways opted for visual inspections of rocks.
Issue in the case of Just v Queen in Right of British Columbia
Should BC be held liable for negligence in this case?
Takeaway from the case of Just v Queen in Right of British Columbia
Will only be found negligent if the choice of scheme A over scheme B was not bona fide. Courts should not interfere with discretionary matters of public authorities.
Case: Anns v London Borough of Merton local council flats
P leased flats with defective foundations due to the council's failure to inspect actual foundations.
Key point in the case of Anns v London Borough of Merton
The local council had the power to approve foundation plans and inspect actual foundations, but they failed to do so, leading to the defect in the flats.
What happened after heavy snowfall in the case of Boulder falls and Js daughter?
Boulder falls and kills Js daughter after heavy snowfall
What was the issue in the case of Boulder falls and Js daughter?
Should BC be held liable for negligence
What is the takeaway from the case of Boulder falls and Js daughter?
Will only be found negligent if the choice of scheme A over scheme B was not bona fide
In the case of Anns v London Borough of Merton local council flats, what led to wall cracks and sloping floors in P's leased flats?
Defective foundations
What power did the local council have under the Public Health Act in the case of Anns v London Borough of Merton?
A power to approve foundation plans and inspect actual foundations
What was the issue in the case of Stovin v Wise local highway authority?
Was the highway authority negligent in failing to follow up on the obstruction
What is the takeaway from the case of Stovin v Wise local highway authority?
Liability only if the authority actually decided to do nothing and THAT decision was not bona fide
In the case of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales police, what was the outcome of the emergency call being incorrectly routed?
Woman was murdered
What was the issue in the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police?
Were police negligent in allowing a 3rd party to be injured during an arrest
What is the takeaway from the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police?
Police were held liable for the negligence of injuring an innocent third party during an arrest
What is the chilling effect on governance related to the process of decision-making?
More deliberation is a sign that the nature of the decision involves complicated value judgments weighing interests of different groups.
What aspect of government decisions contributes to the chilling effect on governance related to budgetary considerations?
The nature and extent of budgetary considerations in government decisions concerning budgetary allotments for departments or government agencies.
Why are government decisions concerning budgetary allotments classified as policy decisions?
They are more likely to fall within the core competencies of the legislative and executive branches.
What determines the likelihood of a decision being reviewed for negligence by courts?
The extent to which the decision was based on objective criteria, with decisions based on technical or general standards of reasonableness more likely to be reviewed.
What are the two main criteria in the Vicarious Liability Test for an employee's actions to hold an employer liable for a tort?
1. The tortfeasor must be an employee of the employer, not an independent contractor. 2. The tort must have been committed in the course of employment, either authorized by the employer or connected to an authorized act.
In Bazley v Curry, what factors determine if the employer is vicariously liable for the employee's actions?
Opportunity for the employee to abuse power, extent to which the wrongful act furthered employer's aims, related to inherent friction or intimacy in the employer's enterprise, power conferred on employee, vulnerability of potential victims to wrongful exercise of power.
What was the case and issue in Bazley v Curry regarding vicarious liability for sexual abuse at a residential care facility?
Case: Bazley v Curry. Issue: Can an employee's sexual abuse on a child in a group home be considered an unauthorized mode of looking after the child, rendering the employer vicariously liable for the tort?
What was the takeaway from Bazley v Curry regarding vicarious liability for non-profit organizations in cases of employee misconduct?
Employer is vicariously liable if an employee is permitted or required to be alone with a child for extended periods of time, and the nature of the relationship enhances the risk of harm to the child.
In Jacobi v Griffiths, why was the club not found vicariously liable for the employee's sexual abuse at a children's club?
The employee's tort was not an authorized mode of doing an authorized act within his job duties, and the club introduced him to the children and gave him the powers to commit the tort.
What was the case and issue in Lister v Hesley Hall regarding vicarious liability for sexual abuse by a warden at a boarding house?
Case: Lister v Hesley Hall. Issue: Is Hesley Hall vicariously liable for the warden's sexual abuse of the residents?
Jacobi v. Griffiths - Facts
Griffiths was hired as a program director for a nonprofit club to organize recreational activities and develop a rapport with the club's members. He sexually abused the children by drawing them to his home.
Jacobi v. Griffiths - Issue
Is the club liable for Griffiths' sexual abuse?
Jacobi v. Griffiths - Takeaway
The club is not vicariously liable as the employee's tort was not an authorized mode of doing an authorized act within his job duties.
Lister v. Hesley Hall - Facts
The warden of a boarding house for boys with emotional difficulties sexually abused the residents under his care.
Lister v. Hesley Hall - Issue
Is Hesley Hall vicariously liable for the warden's actions?
Lister v. Hesley Hall - Takeaway
Yes, the employer is vicariously liable as there is a connection between the employer and the employee with the act being in the course of employment.
Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc - Facts
An employee of Morrison racially insulted and assaulted a customer, ignoring his supervisor's attempts to stop him.
Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc - Issue
Was the employee's actions part of the field of activity he was prescribed to do?
Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc - Takeaway
Yes, the employee was acting within his employer's business capacity, making the employer vicariously liable.
Blackwater v. Plint - Facts
Plint sexually assaulted a person in a residential school run jointly by Canada and the United Church.
Blackwater v. Plint - Issue
Can both Canada and the United Church be held vicariously liable for the sexual assault?
Blackwater v. Plint - Takeaway
Yes, both can be held vicariously liable. The victim can sue both employers, but recovery may be proportioned based on relevant degrees of control.
CW Theoretical Frames - Main thesis
Tort law language appears neutral but can disproportionately impact social groups. Rules may favor certain groups, e.g., privileging physical harms over emotional ones.
CW Theoretical Frames - Examples of biased rules
Rules like the requirement of 'reasonable fortitude,' community standards test, and assessing damages that devalue lives of women and sexual minorities showcase hidden biases in tort law.
Standard Models of Tort Law
Differ from critical approaches like Law and Economics, which focus on efficiency and cost-justified accidents, and Corrective Justice, focused on correcting violations of rights without deterrence or compensation concerns.
What are some injuries mentioned in the text?
Domestic violence, sexual exploitation, physical/mental disabilities, different classes of people, precarious immigration status.
What is the Law and Economics approach in tort law focused on?
Efficiency and achieving a certain kind of social regulation through deterrence.
What is the focus of Corrective Justice in tort law?
Correcting the defendant's violation of the plaintiff's rights, not deterrence or compensation for economic loss.
What are the ingredients of the Critical Approach in tort law?
1. Look at neglected areas of law and injuries, 2. Take the victim's perspective, 3. Examine intersecting systems of oppression, 4. Use an expansive conception of gender/race bias.
Where is bias located according to the text in tort law?
In the minds of judges and in the rules and practices comprising tort law.
What are some proposals for reform mentioned in the text regarding tort law?
Abolishing gender/race-based damages tables, allowing civil rights statutes to influence tort law, accurately naming harms, advocating for tort law to protect other interests like domestic violence.
What is the Causation Thesis discussed in the text?
It challenges the conventional wisdom on causation in legal determinations, emphasizing how gender and race issues can be important in causation determinations.
What is the Fundamental Attribution Error mentioned in the text?
The tendency to attribute bad outcomes to dispositional factors for others, leading to blaming the victim and overlooking situational factors.
What is the bias toward Normality discussed in the text?
The bias that leads to viewing childbearing as a woman's destiny and attributing outcomes to the woman's body rather than situational factors.
What is the Fundamental Attribution Error in causal attributions?
The tendency to hold dispositional factors responsible for bad outcomes that happen to others and blame the victim, especially when the behavior confirms stereotypes.
Give an example of the Fundamental Attribution Error in legal cases.
In early wrongful birth cases, judges focused on dispositional factors like the presence of rubella as a cause rather than situational factors like doctors' advice and testing.
What is the Bias toward Normality in causal attributions?
The difficulty in imagining alternatives to scenarios perceived as normal, which can lead to overlooking other causes for an injury, attributing it solely to the victim's conduct.
How does the Bias toward Normality affect legal judgments?
It can discourage consideration of other causes for an injury if it is perceived as a normal or inevitable result, leading to a narrow focus on the victim's conduct.
What is the Bias towards Omissions in causal attributions?
The tendency to blame people more readily for actions than for omissions, overlooking the impact of not taking active steps or preventative measures.
What is the lead paint cases issue related to specific causation?
The issue is proving specific causation, where the plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred 'but for' the lead paint exposure, facing defense strategies that negate specific causation by attributing the disability to genetic factors or family environment.
What was the case of Purcell v St Paul City Co about?
The plaintiff, a female passenger on a street car in St. Paul, suffered physical injury and a miscarriage due to a cable car rapidly approaching her car, causing a collision scare.
How did the Minnesota court view the plaintiff's physical injury in the Purcell v St Paul City Co case?
The court considered the physical injury as serious as the breaking of an arm or a leg, and found proximate cause due to the predictable response of the plaintiff in the alarming situation.
What did the court declare regarding pregnant women in the Purcell v St Paul City Co case?
The court declared that pregnant women have the right to be carried and are entitled to a high degree of care from carriers, rejecting the view of pregnant women as supersensitive or abnormal.
What is the lasting legacy of the Purcell v St Paul City Co case in the law of torts?
The struggle over the physical-emotional dichotomy in tort law, as well as the gendered hierarchy and racialized fear and white privilege highlighted in the case.
How were white women's claims of nervous shock treated differently based on race in the Purcell v St Paul City Co case?
White women's claims were more readily accepted, and stereotypes worked in favor of white female plaintiffs, while devaluing Black Americans' interests, reputations, and lives.
What bias is demonstrated in wrongful birth cases, as seen in the Purcell v St Paul City Co case?
Bias in expanded sense at work in courts' treatment of women bringing these claims, with issues of causal issues, omission bias, and the reframing of the causation inquiry.
How did courts' views on reproduction change after the 1980s, as highlighted in the Purcell v St Paul City Co case?
Courts began to see reproduction as a mutable process subject to human intervention, leading to a reframing of the causation inquiry in wrongful birth claims centered on the mother's right to reproductive choice.
What deep problem is highlighted in lawsuits related to wrongful birth, as discussed in the Purcell v St Paul City Co case?
The structure of the lawsuit forces women to choose between being viewed as a good mother or securing compensation, leading to vilification in the media and challenges in court.
What types of lawsuits could be brought instead of wrongful birth claims, as suggested in the Purcell v St Paul City Co case?
Negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, which require proving that the conduct of the defendant was outrageous, providing an alternative to the challenges faced in wrongful birth cases.
What is the issue faced by women who bring claims forward regarding their doctors' negligence and their child's illness?
Women are vilified in the media and juries do not regard them kindly, creating a dilemma between being viewed as a good mother or securing financial compensation.
In cases of emotional harm in tort law, what was the focus of early courts regarding the genuineness of claims?
Early courts doubted the genuineness of emotional harm claims and faulted plaintiffs for not being tougher or suggested injuries were due to the peculiarities of the plaintiff.
What are the three specific contexts in which emotional and relational harms arise, according to feminist strategies?
The three specific contexts are sexual exploitation, reproductive injury, and harm to close relationships, which have a close connection to women's interests and gender equality issues.
What is the key argument regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in tort law according to the text?
The text argues that American courts conceptualize NIED as a question of remoteness rather than a new duty of care, which limits recovery for emotional disturbance.
What is Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) and when is liability imposed?
An actor whose negligent conduct causes serious emotional disturbance to another is subject to liability if the conduct places the other in immediate danger of bodily harm and the emotional disturbance results from the danger, or occurs in specific categories of activities where negligent conduct is likely to cause serious emotional disturbance.
How does Keating argue the courts should approach Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)?
Keating argues that courts should not impose new obligations but recognize a pre-existing duty (general tort duty or duties arising from contract) and allow recovery for emotional disturbance if it is proximate enough. This approach treats questions as issues of remoteness rather than creating a new duty of care.
What are the restrictions on recovery in Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) cases?
Some courts have limited recovery to cases where there is a pre-existing contractual relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. However, in Ontario, employees cannot bring NIED claims against employers.
What are the main problems with conceptualizing Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) as deriving from a contractual relationship?
The main issue is that the tort should be able to recognize emotional harm in non-commercial contexts, such as individual, mother, or family member relationships. The real interests at stake include sexual autonomy, integrity, and reproductive autonomy.
What was the outcome of the Boyles v Kerr case in Texas regarding Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) related to sexual exploitation?
The majority in the Texas Supreme Court ruled that there was no recovery for NIED as there was no independent duty established in the case. However, the dissent was aware of the prevalence of sexual harassment and domestic violence.
What was the outcome of the Corgan v. Mueling case in Illinois regarding Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)?
In the Corgan v. Mueling case, the majority ruled that the plaintiff could successfully claim NIED as there was a pre-existing duty of care of the psychologist towards the patient.
What type of damages were awarded in the Jane Doe case?
Punitive damages were awarded.
How should a court approach the Jane Doe case in terms of causal attribution?
The court should hold situational factors responsible for actors considered insiders and avoid victim blaming through dispositional factors.
Why should judges be cautious about imposing biases in cases like the Jane Doe case?
To avoid causation issues and ensure fair judgment without biases.
What should be avoided in terms of policy-operational distinction or shielding public authorities from liability in cases involving disadvantaged minority groups?
Avoid the practice of shielding public authorities from liability, especially when decisions involve disadvantaged minority groups.
What is an important addition to what constitutes a non bona fide decision in cases like Jane Doe's?
Attentiveness to recognizing stereotypical reasoning.
What interest is at stake in the Jane Doe case, particularly in terms of protecting autonomy?
The interest in protecting a woman's autonomy.
What bias should be avoided when considering duties of care, especially in cases of omission?
Avoid omission bias and consider duties of care seriously regardless of whether it involves an act or omission.
Send to Chat
AI Edit
Normal Text
Highlight
Scholarly Assistant's Insights
Prepare for your Torts exam with these flashcards covering important cases and legal concepts in Torts law.
Torts
Law
Negligence
Nuisance
Legal Principles
+5 more
Ask Scholarly Assistant
Similar Pages
Login to Leave a Comment
Give your feedback, or leave a comment on a page to share your thoughts with the community.
Login