DOCSLIB.ORG

Cases and Notes Summary for Tort Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cases and Notes Summary for Tort Law CASES AND NOTES SUMMARY FOR TORT LAW University of Alberta, 2015 LAW 440A (Prof. Ubaka Ogbogu) P a g e | 1 P a g e | 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 8 NUISANCE .............................................................................................................................................. 8 GROUND FOR LIABILITY ................................................................................................................ 8 Appleby v Erie Tobacco Co .............................................................................................................. 8 Rogers v Elliott ................................................................................................................................. 9 The Mayor, etc of Bradford v Pickles ............................................................................................... 9 Hollywood Silver FoxFarm ltd v Emmett....................................................................................... 10 Fontainebleau Hotel Corp v Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc .............................................................. 10 Bryant v Lefever .............................................................................................................................. 11 Prah v Maretti.................................................................................................................................. 12 TH Critelli v Lincolm Trusts and Savings Co (1978) ..................................................................... 12 Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd ............................................................................................................ 13 Shuttleworth v Vancouver General Hospital ................................................................................... 13 Laws v Florinplace Ltd ................................................................................................................... 14 LEGAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC POLICY ..................................................................................... 14 “Privilege, Malice and Intent”, Holmes .......................................................................................... 15 Bamford v Turnley .......................................................................................................................... 15 Miller v Jackson .............................................................................................................................. 15 Kennaway v Thompson .................................................................................................................. 16 Tock v St John’s Metropolitan Area Board ..................................................................................... 17 Antrim Truck Centre Ltd v Ontario (Transportation) ..................................................................... 18 REMEDIES ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Shelfer v City of London Electrical Lighting Co ............................................................................ 19 Canada Paper Co v Brown .............................................................................................................. 19 Black v Canadian Copper Co .......................................................................................................... 20 Spur Industries v Del E Webb Development Co ............................................................................. 20 Spur Feeding Co v Superior Court of Maricopa County ................................................................ 21 LAW AND ECONOMICS .................................................................................................................... 22 INTENTIONAL TORTS AND INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................. 23 Allan v Mount Sinai Hospital ......................................................................................................... 24 Malette v Shulman .......................................................................................................................... 25 Reibl v Hughes ................................................................................................................................ 26 Norberg v Wynrib ........................................................................................................................... 27 CONSEQUENTIALISM AND CAPACITY ...................................................................................... 28 P a g e | 3 H(B) v Alberta (Director of Child Welfare) .................................................................................... 28 PROVOCATION AND SELF – DEFENCE ....................................................................................... 29 Wackett v Calder ............................................................................................................................. 29 DEFENCE OF THIRD PERSON ....................................................................................................... 30 Gambriell v Caparelli ...................................................................................................................... 30 DEFENCE OF PROPERTY ............................................................................................................... 30 DISCIPLINE TO CHILDREN ........................................................................................................... 30 TRESSPASS TO LAND ..................................................................................................................... 31 Turner v Thorne ............................................................................................................................. 31 DEFENCES TO TRESPASS .............................................................................................................. 31 INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CHATTELS ................................................................... 31 Pierson v Post .................................................................................................................................. 32 Penfolds Wines Prop. Ltd. v Elliott................................................................................................. 32 STRICT LIABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 32 Rylands v Fletcher ........................................................................................................................... 33 Rickards v Lothian .......................................................................................................................... 34 Read v J Lyons & Co, Ltd ............................................................................................................... 34 VICARIOUS LIABILITY .................................................................................................................. 35 Canadian Pacific Railway v Lockhart ............................................................................................. 37 Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage .......................................................................................... 37 London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagle International Ltd ................................................................ 38 Bazley v Curry ................................................................................................................................ 39 Jacobi v Griffiths ............................................................................................................................. 42 DEFAMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Awan v. Levant ................................................................................................................................ 43 Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto ........................................................................................ 46 DEFENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 47 Hay v Platinum Equites Inc. ........................................................................................................... 48 Globe and Mail Ltd. v. Boland ........................................................................................................ 49 Banks v. the Globe and Mail Ltd. et al. ........................................................................................... 50 Vader Zalm v Times Publishers ...................................................................................................... 51 WIC Radio v Simpson .................................................................................................................... 51 MIDTERM EXAM INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 52 NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY ............................................................................................................ 53 FIRST ELEMENT: PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT WAS NEGLIGENT 54 P a g e | 4 Vaughan v Menlove .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Topic: LIABILITY UNDER the RULE in RYLANDS V FLETCHER IN
    1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Research Liability under this topic is actually focused on the environmental liability in the construction industry which aims at making the perperator of environmental damage or the polluter to pay for remedying the damage that he has caused. Liability for environmental damage is an important part of any developed legal system. This study actually looks at the potential liabilities of owners, contractor and occupiers of land for damages caused to neighboring land under the common law, due to escapes from the defendant’s land of things with a known potential to cause damage, be that escape of chemicals, water and fire. The particular area of discussion is liability in the absence of 2 negligence under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.1 The rule seems to be very helpful in environmental cases, where damage is the result of escape of dangerous substances2. All this while, Malaysia has been overwhelmed by the occurrence of indiscriminate development, which, at best, resulted in redundancy and visually unpleasant construction activities and, at worst, caused overcrowding, squeezing out of open spaces and environmental degradation, with affiliated effects on public well-being and health. In recent years, the uptrend in the occurrence of floods in urban areas and pollution of our water resources arising from land-use related causes amongst other signs of environmental degeneration, serve to highlight the harshness of the problems of poor development planning, disregard of planning laws and inadequate policing of developers.3 The origin of the problem lies in the lack of coordination of planning policies within and amongst States and between the Federal and State governments.
    [Show full text]
  • FATE MANAGEMENT: the Real Target of Modern Criminal Law
    FATE MANAGEMENT: The Real Target of Modern Criminal Law W.B. Kennedy Doctor of Juridical Studies 2004 University of Sydney © WB Kennedy, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT vii PREFACE ix The Thesis History x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii TABLE OF CASES xv TABLE OF LEGISLATION xix New South Wales xix Other Australian jurisdictions xix Overseas municipal statute xx International instruments xx I INTRODUCTION 1 The Issue 1 The Doctrinal Background 4 The Chosen Paradigm 7 The Hypothesis 9 The Argument 13 Why is This Reform Useful? 21 Methodology 21 Structure ............................................................................24 II ANTICIPATORY OFFENCES 27 Introduction 27 Chapter Goal 28 Conspiracy and Complicity 29 Attempt 31 Arguments for a discount ......................................................33 The restitution argument 33 The prevention argument 34 Arguments for no discount .....................................................35 Punishment as retribution 35 Punishment as prevention 35 The objective argument: punish the violation 35 The subjective argument: punish the person 37 The anti-subjective argument 38 The problems created by the objective approach .......................39 The guilt threshold 39 Unlawful killing 40 Involuntary manslaughter 41 The problems with the subjective approach ..............................41 Impossibility 41 Mistake of fact 42 Mistake of law 43 Recklessness 45 Oppression 47 Conclusion 48 FATE MANAGEMENT III STRICT LIABILITY 51 Introduction 51 Chapter Goal 53 Origins 54 The Nature of Strict Liability
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Right of Self-Defense, 22 BYU J
    Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 22 | Issue 1 Article 3 7-1-2007 The umH an Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel Paul Gallant Joanne D. Eisen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne D. Eisen, The Human Right of Self-Defense, 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 43 (2007). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol22/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare that 1. Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., http://www.davekopel.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law Notes
    https://www.uninote.co.uk/vendor/kings-llb-student/ All rights reserved to the author. Tort Law Notes Part 1 out of 2 [127 pages] Contents: Intentional Interferences with the Person + Defences Occupiers’ Liability Nuisance + The Tort in Rylands v Fletcher Remedies Vicarious Liability 1 https://www.uninote.co.uk/vendor/kings-llb-student/ All rights reserved to the author. Intentional Interferences with the Person Who can sue whom, in what tort, for what damage and are there any defences? Causes of Action Trespass to the person is an intentional tort = the conduct must be deliberate. It is the act and not the injury that has to be intentional, D does not need to intend to commit a tort or cause harm. Trespass is actionable without proof of damage. Letang v Cooper [1965] QB 232 Patch of land/grass used as car park for a hotel. Claimant sunbathing on that patch, car ran over her. Suffered severe injuries to her legs, she sued. It mattered whether she was bringing her claim in the tort of battery and in the tort of negligence because of the limitation period. This no longer applies because of new statute (private law 6 years, personal injury 3 years). Lord Denning: “We divide the causes of action now according as the defendant did the injury intentionally or unintentionally.” Intentionally = trespass to the person Unintentionally = negligence ASSAULT An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person. Assault protects the right not to be put in fear of unlawful invasion of our integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the CIRCUIT COURT for Baltimore City
    ',E~: 1 ~ ~. a,~~ Baltimore City IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR------------------------------ CIVIL - NnN-DnMESTIC CASE INFnRM T DIRECTIONS t~ ~ ~~ ~4~ Plaintiff: This Information Report must be completed and attached to the complaintfiled with the Clerk of Court unless your case is exempted from the requirement.by t~i~'+~~a~~~u~ the~Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 2-111(a). Defendant: You must file an Information Report as required by Rule 2,323(h).: THIS INFORMATION REPpRT CANNOT~BE ACCEPTED AS A PLEADING BY:~7PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT CASE NUMBER FORM FILED •--- --- ------'-- - - -f~rkto nser~------------------ Brenda Bennett, et al. University of Marylan~ ~Viec~icat System CASE vs. ----------------- NAME:------------------------- amti - ------------------~~TSe en ant PARTY'S NAME: PHONE: PARTY'S ADDRESS:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ - --- -- --- PARTY'S E-MAIL:----------- --- -------------------------------------_._____--------------------------•-------------- ~f r~~zr~sented__by an_ attorn.ey; --Ben'amin L:Davis, III - - --410 244 7005- PARTY'S ATTORNEY'S NAME:---------~_- --- _---- _ ~,_~___ PHONE:.------_--___- _--_----- -------__ ADDRESS:~6 South Charles ~freet,Baltimore, Maryland 21201 PARTY'S ATTORNEY'S bdavTs~"nicholtlaw.com"""""- PARTY'S ATTORNEY'S E-MAIL: JURY DEMAND? Yes O No RELATED CASE PENDING? L7Yes f~No If yes, Case #~s), if known:__________~_________~_~M________. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TRIAL?: ____._hours _____.__da s PLEADING TYPE New Case: Original
    [Show full text]
  • Dismantling the Purported Right to Kill in Defence of Property Kenneth Lambeth*
    Dismantling the Purported Right to Kill in Defence of Property Kenneth Lambeth* Two of the most fundamental western legal principles are the right to life and the right to own property. But what happens when life and property collide? Such a possibility exists within the realm of criminal law where a person may arguably be acquitted for killing in defence of property. Unlike life, property has never been a fundamental right,1 but a mere privilege2 based upon the power to exclude others. Killing in defence of property, without something more,3 can therefore never be justified. The right to life is now recognised internationally4 as a fundamental human right, that is, a basic right available to all human beings.5 Property is not, nor has it ever been, such a universal right. The common law has developed “without explicit reference to the primacy of the right to life”.6 However, the sanctity of human life, from which the right to life may be said to flow, predates the common law itself. This article examines two main sources to show that, wherever there is conflict between the right to life and the right to property, the right to life must prevail. The first such source is the historical, legal and social * Final year LLB student, Southern Cross University. A sincere and substantial debt of gratitude is owed to Professor Stanley Yeo for his support, guidance and inspiration. 1 The word ‘fundamental’ is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary to mean ‘essential; primary; original’. A ‘right’ is defined as ‘a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive or moral’: Delbridge, A et al (eds), The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Ed), Macquarie Library, NSW, 1998, pp 859, 1830.
    [Show full text]
  • An Alternative Application of the Rule in Rylands V Fletcher to ‘Ultra-Hazardous’ Activities
    A Thing Less Likely to Do Mischief: An Alternative Application of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher to ‘Ultra-Hazardous’ Activities Ryan Chan-Wei* Introduction hrough the past century, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher1 has been the subject of much debate, to the point where Francis Bohlen commented that yet another analysis of Rylands v Fletcher T would merely be ‘a thrashing out of old straw’.2 Considering how crowded the field is, it might be difficult to see what value yet another article can add, let alone one by an undergraduate. However, I humbly suggest that there is still more to be said, especially with respect to how Rylands v Fletcher has been applied in the specific context of ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities. In particular, the English courts have not adopted a distinct approach3 in applying the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities despite valid concerns raised to the contrary, 4 instead preferring to subject both ‘ultra- hazardous’ and non-ultra-hazardous’ activities to the same Rylands v Fletcher standard. This article will demonstrate that such a position can, and should, be rethought. 1. Overview The existing debate concerning Rylands v Fletcher liability for ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities has largely been framed as a stark choice between two polarities, to the point where it was once described as ‘a storm centre’.5 On the one hand, some see Rylands v Fletcher as an opportunity to impose a blanket rule of strict liability for ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities, by embracing the enterprise liability approach that has significantly shaped American tort law, and leaving the non-‘ultra-hazardous’ Rylands v Fletcher cases to negligence.6 On the other hand, some see the principle as obsolete, arguing instead that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is an anachronism in light of the development of the fault principle and that it should be subsumed into the broader tort of negligence, even in the context of ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities, as the Australian courts have done.7 In contrast, this article will suggest that a middle ground can be found.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Code 2003.Pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No
    273 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. SAINT LUCIA ______ No. 9 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Application of Code 4. General construction of Code 5. Common law procedure to apply where necessary 6. Interpretation PART II JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES 7. Claim of right 8. Consent by deceit or duress void 9. Consent void by incapacity 10. Consent by mistake of fact 11. Consent by exercise of undue authority 12. Consent by person in authority not given in good faith 13. Exercise of authority 14. Explanation of authority 15. Invalid consent not prejudicial 16. Extent of justification 17. Consent to fight cannot justify harm 18. Consent to killing unjustifiable 19. Consent to harm or wound 20. Medical or surgical treatment must be proper 21. Medical or surgical or other force to minors or others in custody 22. Use of force, where person unable to consent 23. Revocation annuls consent 24. Ignorance or mistake of fact criminal code 2003.pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 25. Ignorance of law no excuse 26. Age of criminal responsibility 27. Presumption of mental disorder 28. Intoxication, when an excuse 29. Aider may justify same force as person aided 30. Arrest with or without process for crime 31. Arrest, etc., other than for indictable offence 32. Bona fide assistant and correctional officer 33. Bona fide execution of defective warrant or process 34. Reasonable use of force in self-defence 35. Defence of property, possession of right 36.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Right of Privacy
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 15 Issue 4 Issue 4 - October 1962 Article 4 10-1962 Defamation and the Right of Privacy John W. Wade, Dean Vanderbilt Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Privacy Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John W. Wade, Dean, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vanderbilt Law Review 1093 (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defamation and the Right of Privacy JOHN W. WADE* In this article Dean Wade discusses the scope of the tort of un- warranted invasion of the right of privacy, comparing and contrasting it with the tort of defamation. He observes that the action for invasion of the right of privacy may come to supplant the action for defamation and that this development should be welcomed by the courts and writers. Finally, he concludes that the whole law of privacy may someday be- come a part of the larger, more comprehensive tort of intentional in- fliction of mental suffering. I. INTRODUOTMON The history of the two torts of defamation and unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy has been greatly different. Defamation developed over a period of many centuries, with the twin torts of libel and slander having completely separate origins and historical growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Liability for Injury Caused by the Emission of Noxious Gases - Wright V
    Maryland Law Review Volume 28 | Issue 1 Article 5 Liability For Injury Caused By The miE ssion Of Noxious Gases - Wright v. Masonite Corporation Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Liability For Injury Caused By The Emission Of Noxious Gases - Wright v. Masonite Corporation, 28 Md. L. Rev. 33 (1968) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol28/iss1/5 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comments and Casenotes Liability For Injury Caused By The Emission Of Noxious Gases Wright v. Masonite Corporation' In an action to recover damages for the loss of grocery stock which had been contaminated by the infiltration of formaldehyde gas from defendant's manufacturing plant. which was located approximately 200 feet from the plaintiff's store, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir- cuit held that the defendant was not liable in nuisance since the invasion was neither intentional nor negligent. The majority of the court stated that under North Carolina law the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher2 was inapplicable to non-ultrahazardous activities and that the rules of the Restatement of Torts governing liability for nuisance would be applied. Restatement § 822' provides that a defendant is liable in nuisance for a non-trespassory invasion of another's interest in land only if the invasion had been both intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules governing negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations of Actions in Conversion and Detinue
    Manitoba Law Reform Commission 432-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3L6 T 204 945-2896 F 204 948-2184 Email: [email protected] http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS IN CONVERSION AND DETINUE Report #125 November 2011 Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Manitoba. Law Reform Commission Limitations of actions in conversion and detinue. (Report ; 125) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-7711-1557-8 — 1. Limitation of actions 2. Trover and conversion Manitoba 3. Time (Law)--Manitoba I. Title. II. Series: Report (Manitoba. Law Reform Commission) ; 125 KEM 484 .L54 .M35 2011 346.7127052 222 20119620014 ’s Copies of the Commission Reports may be ordered from Statutory Publications, 20 - 200 ’s Reports are also available Vaughan Street, Winnipeg, MB R3C 1T5. The Commission electronically at www.jus.gov.mb/mlrc. The Manitoba Law Reform Commission was established by The Law Reform Commission Act in 1970 and began functioning in 1971. Commissioners: Cameron Harvey, Q.C., President John C. Irvine Hon. Mr. Gerald O. Jewers Hon. Mr. Justice Perry Schulman Legal Counsel: Catherine Skinner Administrator: Debra Floyd The Commission offices are located at 432-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3L6 Tel: (204) 945-2896 Fax: (204) 948-2184 Email: [email protected] Website: http://gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc The Manitoba Law Reform Commission is funded by grants from: The Government of Manitoba and The Manitoba Law Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # – CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 – CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CONVERSION AND DETINUE 3 A. CONVERSION 3 1. Reform of Conversion 6 B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of Embryo and Fetal Experimentation and Disposal in England and the United States
    VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 39 APRIL 1986 NUMBER 3 "Alas! Poor Yorick," I Knew Him Ex Utero: The Regulation of Embryo and Fetal Experimentation and Disposal in England and the United States Nicolas P. Terry* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 420 II. EXPERIMENTATION, DISPOSAL, AND THE ABORTION DE- BATE .............................................. 422 III. FETUSES AND FETAL MATERIALS: DISPOSAL ......... 426 A. Disposal-Specific Legislation .............. 427 B. Disposal-IndirectRegulation .............. 430 C. Fetus Disposal and Tort Law ............... 431 IV. FETUSES AND FETAL MATERIALS: POSSESSORY RIGHTS 432 A. Common Law Possessory Interests .......... 432 B. Possessory Interests in Nonburial Situations. 433 C. Fetal Possession-Specific Legislation ....... 437 V. FETAL EXPERIMENTATION ........................... 440 A. Definitional Problems ...................... 441 *Associate Professor of Law, St. Louis University. Formerly, Lecturer in Law, Univer- sity of Exeter, England. B.A. (Law) Kingston Polytechnic; LL.M. Cambridge. I owe a debt of gratitude to Kate Whitby, my research assistant, for her painstaking work. I would like to thank my colleagues, Isaak Dore, Stanislaw Frankowski, Sandra Johnson, and Carolyn Jones for their support and encouragement. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:419 B. Guidelines for Research in England ......... 442 C. Federally Funded Fetal Research ........... 444 D. State Regulation of Fetal Research ......... 446 E. Fetal Experimentation Regulation and Pri- vacy Guarantees..........................
    [Show full text]