DOCSLIB.ORG

Torts CAN Professor Nelson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Torts CAN Professor Nelson Torts CAN Professor Nelson Table of Contents Negligence Index ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Topic 1: Introduction to Tort Law ..................................................................................................................... 5 General ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Distinguished From Other Areas of Law .......................................................................................................... 6 Tort Theory ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Alternatives to Tort Law .................................................................................................................................... 8 Topic 2: Trespass and Intentional Interference with the Person ................................................................... 8 Part I: Trespass and Intentional Interference with the Person ...................................................................... 8 Historic Development of Intentional Torts ........................................................................................................ 8 Accidental, Negligent, and Intentional Conduct ................................................................................................ 9 Motive, Mistake, Volition and Capacity ........................................................................................................... 10 Assault ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Battery ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Allan v New Mount Sinai Hospital ........................................................................................................... 14 Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v Scalera ...................................................................... 14 Invasion of Privacy ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Part 2: Defenses to Intentional Torts .............................................................................................................. 19 Consent .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Norberg v Wynrib ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Sports Context .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Medical Context ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Malette v Shulman .................................................................................................................................... 21 AC v Manitoba .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Topics 3+4: Introduction to Law of Negligence; The Standard of Care ...................................................... 24 Historical Development and Elements of Negligence .................................................................................... 24 Standard of Care: General Principles ............................................................................................................. 25 Watt v Hertfordshire ................................................................................................................................. 26 Priestman v Colangelo ............................................................................................................................. 27 Children .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Disabled ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Blackburn v British Columbia ................................................................................................................. 30 Professionals .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Custom/Generally Approved Practice ............................................................................................................ 31 Statutory Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Degrees of Negligence ................................................................................................................................... 33 Topic 5: The Duty of Care ................................................................................................................................ 33 Donoghue v Stevenson ........................................................................................................................... 34 Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co ........................................................................................................ 34 Fullowka v Pinkerton’s of Canada .......................................................................................................... 36 Styl Apps Secure Treatment v BD .......................................................................................................... 36 Duty to Rescue ............................................................................................................................................... 37 !Horsley v McLaren ................................................................................................................................... 37 Duty of Care For Commercial Hosts .............................................................................................................. 38 Stewart v Petite ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Social Host Liability ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Childs v Desorneaux ................................................................................................................................ 39 Duty to Warn/Creation of Danger ................................................................................................................... 39 Liability to the Rescuer ................................................................................................................................... 39 Urbanski v Patel ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Duty to Supervise Others ............................................................................................................................... 40 Duty to the Unborn ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Paxton v Ramji .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Liebig v Guelph General Hospital ........................................................................................................... 42 Public Officials ................................................................................................................................................ 43 2 Just v British Columbia ........................................................................................................................... 43 Brown v British Columbia ....................................................................................................................... 44 Swinamer v Nova Scotia (AG) ................................................................................................................. 44 R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd ........................................................................................................... 44 Topic 6: Proof of Negligence ........................................................................................................................... 45 Baker v Market Harborough .................................................................................................................... 46 Inferring Negligence / Res Ipsa Loquitur ....................................................................................................... 46 Byrne v Boadle ......................................................................................................................................... 47 Fontaine v British Columbia (Official Administrator of) ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contract, Tort Or Obligations in the South Pacific?
    UCLA UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal Title "Seductive Company": Contract, Tort or Obligations in the South Pacific? Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/95m0832d Journal UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 19(1) Authors Farran, Sue Care, Jennifer Corrin Publication Date 2001 DOI 10.5070/P8191022147 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California "SEDUCTIVE COMPANY": CONTRACT, TORT OR OBLIGATIONS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC? Sue Farran and Jennifer Corrin Care* INTRODUCTION In jurisdictions which have inherited the English common law, there increasingly appear to be areas of contract law which overlap with the law of torts; where clear distinction is more a matter of academic debate than practical application, and where it might well be asked, as long as a just solution is reached does it matter whether the solution is by way of tort or contract. This is particularly so in the case of liability for negligent advice or in- formation resulting in economic loss. Here, the relationship be- tween the parties might well be one of contract and often, but not always, in circumstances where one party is relying on the exper- tise or professional skill of the other. Implied into the contract, but generally not stipulated, is the idea that the expert or profes- sional will conduct themselves in accordance with the standards generally associated with that profession or expertise. Where the expected standard is not met and loss results, there is the ques- tion not so much of who is liable, but on what grounds should liability be imposed? Where the damage is physical, an action will lie in tort, even if there is no contract, for example, where a surgeon is not employed by the patient but by the State, or where a builder contracts with the previous but not current owner of the building.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Contract Management Curriculum 2020-2021
    Law and Contract Management Curriculum 2020-2021 Page 1 of 57 E @ik W ik Law and Contract Management Curriculum 2020-21 1. ICE Certificate Law and Contract Management (CLCM) 1.1 Module 1 Law Examination: 6th July 2021 1.2 Module 2 Contract Management Examination: 13th July 2021 2. ICE Advance Certificate Law and Contract Management (ACLCM) 2.1 Module 3 Advanced Contract Management Examination: 13th July 2021 3. Dispute Resolution Examinations 3.1 Adjudicator’s Qualifying Examination: 30th June 2021 3.2 Arbitrator’s Endorsement Examination: 7th July 2021 Page 2 of 57 Contents Page 1 Introduction and General Information 1.1 ICE Law and Contract Management Examination Introduction, Overview, Continuing Professional Development, Structure, Level of knowledge 5 required, Case and reading list, Examination under Scots law. The Examination 7 Date and Time, Stages of completion, Reference to documents during the examination, Editions of contract documents, Application, Approved courses, Eligibility to apply, Examination Centres, Examination fee, Overseas candidates Marking and Results 10 Results, Certificates, Marking structure, Marking and moderation, Re-sitting Past examination papers and Examiners’ Reports 2 Dispute Resolution Examinations 2.1 The ICE Adjudicator’s Qualifying Examination. Overview, Structure, Date and Time, Reference to documents during the examination, 11 Editions of contract documents, Examination under Scots law, Application, Examination fee Marking and Results Results, Certificates, Marking Structure, Moderation and appeals,
    [Show full text]
  • Injuries from Unforeseeable Risks Which Advance Medical Knowledge – a Restitution-Based Justification for Strict Liability
    TKP Ex post negligence SHORT 19/08/2013 10:19:00 DRAFT Injuries from unforeseeable risks which advance medical knowledge – a restitution-based justification for strict liability Tsachi Keren-Paz Professor of Private Law, Keele University. [email protected]. For helpful comments on a previous draft I would like to thank John Danaher, Ariel Porat and Duncan Sheehan. 1 TKP Ex post negligence SHORT 19/08/2013 10:19:00 DRAFT Introduction Medical treatments involve risks; sometimes the risks are unforeseeable at the time of treatment.1 When a patient is injured from the materialisation of unforeseeable risk, traditional tort principles require one of two unhappy results: Either the patient who was injured from what is deemed to be, albeit only with hindsight, suboptimal, would not be compensated, or the physician would be found liable, based on an incorrect finding of the risk as foreseeable, with the result that the physician is unjustly labelled as negligent. I examine in this paper a third possibility which will impose strict liability on the physician under a restitutionary theory: involuntarily, the patient has advanced knowledge which will prevent harm to future patients. Therefore, it is fair to compensate the patient for the costs she incurred by providing this benefit. Consider the following example. Ravid, a 5 year old girl, is being treated by a dentist who uses a non-aspirating syringe (NAS) for a local anaesthetic to her gum. Shortly after neurological symptoms appeared and eventually, permanent neurological impairment remained. A use of aspirating syringe (AS) would have indicated the penetration of the material to the artery, thereby preventing the injection into the bloodstream.
    [Show full text]
  • Law 430 Torts CAN Nelson Winter 2018
    Law 430 Torts CAN Nelson Winter 2018 Torts CAN Winter 2018 NEGLIGENCE ..............................................................................................................................................................1 COMPONENTS OF NEGLIGENCE ..............................................................................................................................1 INTRO TO DEFENCES OF NEGLIGENCE .................................................................................................................2 AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD ......................................................................................................................................2 Vaughan v Menlove .......................................................................................................................................2 THE STANDARD OF CARE ........................................................................................................................................2 THE REASONABLE PERSON .................................................................................................................................2 Bolton v Stone ...............................................................................................................................................3 Priestman v Colangelo ....................................................................................................................................3 FACTORS RELEVANT FOR THE STANDARD OF CARE .............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Duty of Care
    DUTY OF CARE • “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question Intro to DOC pre-write: The duty of care is the first step of the negligence analysis and was introduced in Donoghue v Stevenson. This step in the analysis serves as a gatekeeper to negligence claims in determining who can make a claim against who but also ensures that harms are not left uncompensated (Donoghue). The duty of care analysis does not rest on moral obligations but rather legal duties (Donoghue). The court must ask if the [defendant] is under a legal obligation to exercise care with regard to [Plaintiff’s] interests. In Canada, the Anns- Cooper (Cooper v Hobart) test is the current standard for determining whether a duty of care exists. Before the application of the test, the court in Cooper states that it must be contemplated whether there is already an established duty which the case falls under. If this so, the court can skip the Anns-Cooper test and proceed to the analysis of the standard of care.
    [Show full text]
  • Damages for Psychiatric Injury Discussion Paper
    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Discussion Paper No 120 Discussion Paper on Damages for Psychiatric Injury August 2002 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission EDINBURGH: The Stationery Office £16.00 0 10 888 069 9 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Patrick S Hodge, QC Professor Gerard Maher Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson. The Secretary of the Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The Commission would be grateful if comments on this discussion paper were submitted by 30 November 2002. Comments may be made on all or any of the matters raised in the paper. All correspondence should be addressed to: Dr David Nichols Scottish Law Commission 140 Causewayside Edinburgh EH9 1PR Tel: 0131 668 2131 Fax: 0131 662 4900 E-mail: [email protected] Online comments at: www.scotlawcom.gov.uk - select "Submit Comments" NOTES 1. Consultees should be aware that copies of comments received may be (i) referred to in any later report on this subject and (ii) made available to any interested party, unless consultees indicate that all or part of their response is confidential. Such confidentiality will of course be strictly respected. 2. Where possible, we would prefer electronic submission of comments to the e-mail or online comments address above.
    [Show full text]
  • Lady Hale at the Law Society of Scotland
    The Contribution of Scottish Cases to Developing United Kingdom Law Society of Scotland Annual Conference 2018 Edinburgh International Conference Centre Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court 26 October 2018 It is a great pleasure to be back in Scotland. I was here only last week, for the launch of the common law LLB at the University of Glasgow and will be back in a fortnight’s time for the Writers to the Signet Society. In the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, we are very conscious that we serve all parts of the United Kingdom and not just England and Wales. So it was a particular pleasure last year, at long last, to take up the proposal made by the Law Society of Scotland to the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs in 1954, that the apex court in the United Kingdom should sit in Scotland. Better late than never. Your proposal was not supported by the Faculty of Advocates, but you will know better than I why that might be so. We are also very conscious, in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, of the contribution made by Scottish cases, and also by Scottish lawyers, to the development of United Kingdom law. But the first thing I was asked by Peter Nicholson, who interviewed me for your Journal, was ‘is there such a thing as UK law? Doesn’t it just mean applying English law to whole UK?’ I hope this is not just a repetition of the great Professor TB Smith’s complaint about the anglicisation of Scots law.
    [Show full text]
  • Concurrent Liability: Where Have Things Gone Wrong?1
    CONCURRENT LIABILITY: WHERE HAVE THINGS GONE WRONG?1 Lecture by Lord Justice Jackson to the Technology & Construction Bar th Association and the Society of Construction Law on 30 October 2014 (tecbarpaper) INDEX 1. Introduction 2. Roman law (i) Tort (ii) Contract 3. French law 4. German law 5. Common law (i) Development of the law of tort and contract (ii) The two streams of authority (iii) Where are we now? 6. Analysis (i) What is to be learnt from the comparative law exercise? (ii) Limitation (iii) Other objections to concurrent liability (iv) Contribution (v) Overall conclusion 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of this paper. The general purpose of this paper is to examine the boundary between contract and tort in four different legal systems. The specific purpose is to argue that the common law took a wrong turning in Henderson v Merrett [1995] 2 AC 45 and that the House of Lords drew an inappropriate conclusion from its use of comparative law. If the law of limitation is reformed as the Law Commission has proposed, then it might be possible to redefine the law on concurrent liability. In particular, it is submitted that contracts should not, and generally do not, generate duties of care in tort which mirror the contractual obligations. 1.2 Historical context. Before discussing the central issue, I must first look briefly at the historical background. It is unwise to tackle any issue concerning the structure of the law without having regard to the broader context. 1.3 Tort and contract. The law of tort or delict requires D to refrain from injuring C’s person or property, alternatively to compensate C for any injury or loss caused.
    [Show full text]
  • Mixing Oil and Water: Reconciling the Substantial Factor and Results-With-In-The-Risk Approaches to Proximate Cause
    Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2007 Mixing Oil and Water: Reconciling the Substantial Factor and Results-With-In-The-Risk Approaches to Proximate Cause Peter Zablotsky Touro Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/scholarlyworks Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation 56 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1003 (2008) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MIXING OIL AND WATER: RECONCILING THE SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR AND RESULT-WITHIN-THE-RISK APPROACHES TO PROXIMATE CAUSE PETER ZABLOTSKY* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................1003 II. THE FORESEEABILITY BASED FORMULATION OF PROXIMATE CAUSE: RESULT-WITHIN-THE-RISK ..............1005 A . Background................................................................ 1005 B. Person-Within-the-Risk.............................................. 1007 C. Type-W ithin-the-Risk .................................................1008 D. Manner-Within-the-Risk............................................ 1009 E. The Special Case of Intervening Cause .....................1010 1Il. THE SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST ......................................1013 A. Development and Application.................................... 1013 B. Impact and
    [Show full text]