Before 1900
Trespass to Land, England. "every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass"
Entick v. Carrington. 1765 (C.P)
False Imprisonment. England. A miner (an adult, not that kind of miner) voluntarily goes into a mine and they won't let him up until his shift is up.
Herd v. Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co. 1915. (Q.B)
Decision: Too bad, not false imprisonment. You went down there knowing you'd have to keep working. (bullshit decision)
Ratio: if an individual voluntarily forfeits their freedom of movement to another party for a predetermined period of time, the they are not falsely imprisoned if that individual is not permitted to exercise his freedom of movement.
Causation. Assessing Loss. New Hampshire. Company maintains electrical wires that support beams of a bridge. No current during the day. Boys regularly climb wires. One day boy fell off and grabbed a wire. ZAP! Electrocuted to death
Dillon v. Twin State Gas and Electric Co. (1932)
Holding: Not liable for damages
Ratio: an individual that causes harm during an inevitable sequence of events will lead to death is not liable for the death
Standard of Care. Determining Breach. UK. It was the one eyed man! One eyed worker loses function of his one good eye in an accident.
Paris v. Stepney Borough Council. 1951. House of Lords
Holding: Liable (with dissent) Good point on dissent that it's either everyone or no one; however, should be everyone not no one as dissent argues.
Ratio: employers have a duty to take reasonable care for worker safety with particular regard to each of their employee's circumstances and characteristics.
Defences. Implied and Exceeding Consent. Manitoba. That's not hooking!! Player was hooked** by another player who then smashed him in the face with his stick causing damage to vision and nose requiring surgery
Agar v. Canning 1965 Manitoba Queen's Bench
Holding: Liable 2/3 damages awarded because of provocation
Ratio: An action that occurs out of injurious malice within the context of a sporting event can bypass implied consent of participation
False Imprisonment. England. Part of highway closed. Wanted to walk through but was prevented from doing so by officers. "If a person is prevented from moving in the direction they desire, but are free to move in another direction or stay in the same place, then they are not imprisoned."
Bird v. Jones 1845 (Q.B)
United Kingdom. Duty to Rescue. Massachusetts. Went out drunk and a canoe and drowned. Was hanging on yelling for help. Was heard and ignored
Osterlind v. Hill. 1928 (Mass. S.C)
Holding: Not Liable
Ratio: The owner of a canoe rental shop owes no legal duty to patrons of the shop that rent canoes and capsize them in the lake. No legal duty to refrain from renting to potential customers that appear inebriated
Intentional Infliction of Nervous Shock. Manitoba. Rapist of 5 year old daughter sued for damages to mother.
Radovskis v. Tomm (1957) Manitoba QB
Holding: Action dismissed, not liable
Ratio: For a successful claim for nervous shock, resulting injury must be visible, provable, and measurable.
Standard of Care. Determining Breach. UK. Firefighter called to the scene requiring a heavy jack. Truck designed for that jack was unavailable, so they used a truck not suited for the jack. On the way the truck stopped and the jack shifted and injured firefighter.
Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council 1954 Court of Appeal
Holding: Not liable
Ratio: The good of the social end must be considered when assessing liability.
1) probability of occurrence (P)
2) gravity of resulting liability (L)
3) burden of the precautions (B)
4) social end of the activity (S)
PL-S > B liable for damages
PL-S < B not liable for damages
Defences. Self-defence. BC. If at first you don't succeed...altercation outside of a bar. Guy gets knocked down trying to attack the other guy then tries again. This time he really gets hit hard and injured.
Wackett v. Calder 1965. BC Court of Appeal
Holding: Not liable
Ratio: an act of repelling an attacker does not need to be measured with complete exactitude or nicety to demonstrate a successful claim of self defence. If a defendant honestly and reasonably believed they were about to be struck and the amount of force they used to protect themselves was reasonable given the circumstances, then they may successfully invoke the defence of self-defence.
Intentional Infliction of Nervous Shock. 1897. England. Your husband has been seriously injured in an accident, go hurry and help him. "It was just a joke"
Wilkinson v. Downton (Q.B)
Ratio: Intentional actions that could reasonably result in the infliction of nervous shock can result in successful cause of action.
Duty to Perform Gratuitous Undertakings. New York. Fell ill inside a store and was isolated in the infirmary and died of lack of medical care
1936. New York (S.C.)
Holding: Liable for Negligence
Ratio: when an individual undertakes to help a member of the public, that individual assumes a legal duty of care to do what an ordinary person would do in helping that member of the public.
Defence. Implied and Exceeding Consent. BC. Boys were throwing mud at each other for fun. One boy hit with rock in the face.
Wright v. McLean (1956) BC Supreme Court
Holding: Action dismissed, not liable because of implied consent
Ratio: Assumed risk. In sport, people accept the risks that come along with playing a sport so long as injuries sustained result from blows given within the context of the sport and its rules, and not out of malice
Causation. But for. Ontario. These hand rails suck! Going up an escalator at subway station. Two people fighting above fell and injured unsuspecting party because of handrails.
Kauffman v. Toronto 1959 SCC
Holding: Not liable
Ratio: There must be a causal connection between a negligent act by a person/company and a sustained injury for the person/company to be held liable for injury
Defence of Consent (Duress). England. The pregnant servant gets a check-up. "The doctor WILL see you now"
Latter v. Braddell. 1880. (Q.B)
Ratio: Unwilling consent to a medical exam that results from a belief to be bound or through fear of consequences does not constitute legitimate consent.
Duty to Perform Gratuitous Undertakings. Ontario. Where's that watchman? Normally there is a guard to ensure people cross the train tracks safely. No guard, gates open so he proceeds, then bam! Hit by a train!
Soulsby v. Toronto. 1907 (High Court)
Holding: Action dismissed, no duty of care
Ratio: If a person undertakes to perform a voluntary act, he is liable if he performs it improperly, but not if he neglects to perform it.
Standard of Care. Reasonable Person. Ontario. Injured in car accident. Judge instructs jury "would I have done that?" for reasonable person test
Arland v. Taylor 1955. Ontario Court of appeal
Holding: Not liable and appeal dismissed
Ratio: judge's guidance did not cause a substantial wrong. Reasonable person as a person of normal intelligence who would make prudence a guide to his conduct
Assault. New Zealand. "Don't you bloody move [copper]! You come a step closer and you will get this straight through your guts
Police v. Greaves 1964 New Zealand Court of Appeal
Holding: Decision in favour of the police.
Ratio: If a threat issued by an individual is accompanied by a present ability to effect such threat, and the individual to which the threat is directed towards believe that the execution of the threat is imminent, then the action can constitute assault
United Kingdom. Causation. Multiple Causes. We're both playing organs and operating merry go rounds from morning to night which is "maddening"
Lambton v. Mellish, 1894. UK
Ratio: Where two actors are independently sufficient causes for an individual's loss, they are held jointly responsible for the loss, so far as each contributes to that loss.
USA. Standard of Care. Whose barge is that? Left an unattended barge for a whole day. Barge became untied and floated away causing damage to other boats
United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 1947. United States Court of Appeal
Holding: Liable for Damages
Ratio: Three factors to determine liability
1) probability of occurrence (P)
2) the gravity of the resulting liability (L)
3) the burden of precautions (B)
PL > B actor is liable for consequences
PL < B no liability
Standard of Care. Determining Breach. UK. Ouch! Where'd that ball come from? Hit by an errand cricket ball while walking on a path near the pitch.
Bolton v. Stone 1951 House of Lords UK
Holding: Not Liable
Ratio: The standard of care that an individual owes to a member of the public is determined by the foreseeability of a reasonable person
Intentional Infliction of Nervous Shock. Utah. There's no harm in asking, depending on how you ask and how many times. Repeatedly called and solicited relations with an "upstanding married woman" then showed up and exposed his...ehm "person"
Samms v. Eccles 1961 Utah Supreme Court
Holding: Liable for damages
Ratio: One can be liable in circumstances where severe emotional distress occurs but does not give rise to bodily injury.
Test: when defendant intentionally engaged in some conduct towards plaintiff:
1) with purpose of inflicting emotional distress; OR
2) where any reasonable person would have known such would result; AND
3) the actions are of such a nature as to be considered outrageous and intolerable in that they offend acceptance standards of decency and morality