Miscellaneous
In a case title who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant?
The first name is the Plaintiff (who is bringing up the case) the second name (following the vs) is the defendant, who is defending themselves/ their company in the case.
What tort and vicarious liability case builds on Donoghue vs Stevenson?
Dutton vs Bognor regis United Builidng Co,
House foundation laid by builder of house
- inadequate to carry load of building and caused damage (foundation should have been deeper to account for settling)
- Building laws required inspection - this did not happen before building. Result: builder held liable
-court of appeal held that mrs dutton could recover money from council
Donoghue vs Stevenson
Donoghue was given ginger beer by friend and fell ill because of decomposed snail in the bottle. Stevenson appealed but that was rejected,
- House of Lords determined Stevenson was responsible for not inspecting bottle (opaque bottles used so you consumer could not see inside)
Manufacturer is under legal duty to the ultimate consumer to take reasonable care and ensure the product is free from defect.
- Person injured through carelessness of others deserves compensation for harm even if no privity of contract exists.
Cannot be complete compensation for every injury every (reasonableness and limitation liability)
Kocotis vs Dangelo (1958) and Monticchio vs Torcema (1979) are examples of what type of case?
Legality of Purpose:
Kocotis vs Dangelo (1958)
-unlicensed electrician sued for work completed
- defendant succeeded because of statute that was passed to protect public from improper workmen
Monticchio vs Torcema (1979)
- lack of license voided previous cases
- contractor who was not fully licensed installed drains
- contractor sued because he did not receive payments
- received payments for materials, not work
- don't need a license to purchase materials
Micron vs. Hong Kong Bank of Canada
- Micron sought assurance that a developer was good for a multi million dollar development
-HKB gave advice and put in a disclaimer that they weren't responsible
Results: Micron lost money
Said HKB made misrepresentations during consult
- first ruled for HKB, appealed and ruled in favour of micron
What issue arose with Moorcock Docterine (1889)?
A dock was built, but a boat hit the ground when the tide went out.
ruled for plaintiff, because it can reasonably be assumed that there should be enough water at the dock to not cause damages to tied boats
In Canama Contracting vs. Huffman, the engineer could have avoided responsibility is responsibility had been disclaimed like what case?
Hedley vs Heller, which was a Tort with negligent misrepresentation case
in Hedley vs Heller: Advertising agents who asked their bankers to inquire into the credit rating of a company they had business with
Banker negligibly stated they had a good credit rating and they did not, plaintiff lost $17,000
Results: No disclaimer on the services provided by bank so they were not liable for loses (negligible misrepresentation by bankers ruled by the House of Lords) Defendant won
Author is liable for damage and financial loss from negligent misrepresentation if a clear and detailed disclaimer of responsibility is not given
-Expanded scope of damages that may be recovered in tort action
- Focused attention on services performed by professionals who possess special skills
Lambert vs lastoplex
- Engineer bought lacquer manufactured by Lastoplex chemicals that he used to seal a parquet
- the fumes from the lacquer came into contact with the pilot lights in the furnace
- explosion when fire reached half full cans.
- There was warning labels about fire on the label but the fire was in the other room so the plaintiff ignored them
Results: Product did not meet high standard of care, Appeal allowed, trial judge's ruling restored, and costs awarded to the appellants.
- The judge stated that manufactures owe a duty of care to the users of their products and this duty does not end simply because a warning was given.
- He says that warnings must be very explicit and general warning will not suffice to eliminate liability where the likelihood of injury may increase depending on the surroundings.
- The trial judge found that this was the case, and also that the plaintiff did not voluntarily assume the risk simply because he was an engineer.
What is Mailbox Doctrine?
Example case: Queen vs Commercial Credit Corp Ltd (1983)
- Commercial credit sent offer by courier outside of nova scotia
- accepted and couriered back
- court ruled: nova scotia statute did not apply to contract
MacMillan Bloedel vs. Foundation Co (1977)
Tort and Economic Loses
- Foundation co was doing work outside macmillan office
- hit an electrical wire
- power went out
- foundation sent staff home
Results: - defendant (foundation) was negligent for not saying the work could effect macmillan
- Macmillan tried to sue for economic loss
- court said salaries are not economic loss
- court was willing to award damages if they could provide evidence of economic loss
What case ruled with concurrent tortfeasors? and what does that mean?
Corp. Dist. of Surrey vs. Carrol-Hatch (1979)
concurrent tortfeasors means when two or more people cause the same injury to another as a result of their separate tortious acts
- architect designed police station and engaged engineering firm to perform structural service
- extensive structural changes happened because incorrect soil tests were conducted
- architect disagreed with doing proper tests
Results: - decision based on BC Court of appeal
- both engineering (40%) and architect (60%) held liable
- both therefore it’s concurrent tortfeasors, they did the damage together
In Ron Engineering, the trial judge favoured the owner but the court appeal favoured the contractor, what case was used as precedence?
- Court of Appeal favoured contractor because of Belle River case
- Supreme court overturned and favoured owner
Rivtow Marine vs. Washington Ironworks
Tort and Economic Loses case
- Plaintiff charted a logging barge fitted with a crane from WIW
- crane operator died
Results: supreme court found defendants (WIW) liable
- Manufacturers liable to RM in economic loss due to failure to warn
- WIW knew about structural defects but didn't take action
- Economic losses from negligent advice from bankers
-product liability reluctant to give economic loss (due to negligence)
What Tort and Duty of Warn ruled in favour of the Defendant?
George Ho Lem vs. Barotto Sports & Ponsness Warren
george brought shotgun shell packer
- too much power, exploded and injured him
- george claimed there weren't enough instructions
Results: - george lost because there was enough instructions
- george didn't follow them
- Duty to warn didn't apply because it wasn't the defendants fault
Northwestern Mutual Insurance vs. O'Bryan & Co
- northwestern asked employee to delete risk
- employee negligently assured north wester relied - Accident occured, northwestern refused to pay
Results: BC Court appeal held both responsible for tort
- Employees can also be held liable in tort (they could have said something)
- NW paid $22 372 when warehouse was damaged
- NW claimed breach of contract with O-Bryan
- protecting engineering corporations with liability insurance policies
- Canadian court can depart from the traditional approach to employee's liability
Central Trust vs. Rafuse
concurrent tort and contract liability case
- lawyer became liable to client in tort and contract
-failed to meet standard of care
Results: Tort liability then exposed solicitor to tort limitation period of 6 years
- tried to arrange a mortgage but lawyer wrote it wrong
- liable for contract and tort
- lawyer has to pay extra damages
- Supreme court: liability of solicitors in negligence and breach of contract
- doctrine of discoverability under statute of limitations
what case is an example of Duress?
Mutual finance vs john wetton and sons (1937)
Duress/ Capacity to contract
- contract deemed unforeseeable due to duress
- One party intimidated the other into a 2nd guarantee after threatening to expose that the first guarantee was forged
- threatened party disclosed that it may have killed a family member who fell ill
Imperial Glass v. Consolidated Supplies, 1960
- supplier made a mistake in bid
- bid was accepted
- BC court of appeal did not overturn
Belle River Community Arena vs WSC Kauffman Co et al
- contractor accidentally transferred figure from excel sheet for the bid
- contractor tried to withdraw 6 days after
- company accepted contract 1 month later
Results: - contract didn't work out
- company went with different contractor and sued for difference in price
- belle river lost because they knew about the mistake but accepted always
What two cases are based on Estoppel?
Owen Sound Public Library v. Mial Developments
John Burrows v. Subsurface Surveys