Show:
TESTS
Standard of Care
Standard of Care
Custom in Duty
remoteness
100
Cooper/Anns test
What is Cooper test For NOVEL duties 1A. Was there reasonable foreseeability of harm arising from deft’s activities? 1B. Did the relationship between the parties disclose sufficient proximity that the deft should have had the plaintiff within his/her contemplation as reasonably likely to be harmed? AND If proximity exists, should duty nonetheless be denied because of policy factors relating to the parties’ relationship? Eg, conflicting duties to public at large and to a particular subset of the public (seen as a reason to deny proximity in Cooper but not in Hill) 2. Assuming 1A and 1B satisfied, are there are other more general policy considerations that should negative the finding of a duty of care – eg., related to the integrity of the justice system as a whole? Or because a duty to fetus would conflict with autonomy rights of pregnant women, as in Dobson
100
Mining company security. Duty exists but not breached.
What is Fullowka v Pinkerton's
100
Boy throws piece of metal. What standard is used? scale?
What is McHale v Watson Take into account what is “reasonable” for a similarly situated child of that age to know. “Age, intelligence and experience”. 0-5 – not liable, 6-18 held to variable standard.
100
Glass shower door breaks. Custom in standard of care is useful in assessing but not conclusive in itself. Case?
What is Trimarco v Klein
100
Ship, gas into water on fire. Case? too remote?
What is Wagon Mound , yes type of damage not foreseeable
200
What are the factors for proximity in Cooper test?
What is - proximity, reliance, representations, expectations -between the parties, and property or other interests (e.g., liberty and reputation, as in Hill) of the plaintiff that might be harmed
200
Haystack on fire. Man a little simple but standard is the
What is "regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe.” Vaughan v Menlove
200
Children who engage in adult activities like riding motor bikes are held to adult standard. Case?
What is McErlean v Sarel
200
Two ways custom can be used in standard of care
What is 1. to argue that you have taken due care, because you have met the custom; and 2. to argue that the defendant did not conform with custom, and therefore fell below the standard of care required.
200
Burn on lip leads to cancer. What does this case establish?
What is Smith v Leech Brain establishes the thin skull rule. you take a plaintiff as he is.
300
The two pre-conditions for material contribution test for causation
What is 1. Circular causation a. Needs to be impossible for P to show causation using “but for” test. Medical Knowledge (McGhee) Practical impossibility (Cook) b. P’s ability to prove the standard of care, that the standard was breached, and that the P suffered the type of harm that would have resulted from the breach. 2. Dependency causation – the P’s ability to establish negligence depends on decision of third party.
300
Syphillis truck driver = must prove that mental disorder affected parties ability to understand their duty of care in accident.
What is Buckley v Smith Transport
300
When a risk is sufficiently small, a reasonable man can disregard it. Case?
What is Bolton v Stone (cricket ball onto highway)
300
Aids transmitted at artificial insemination. Did he act within custom of the day? Case?
What is ter Neuzen v Korn yes
300
boy, gaslamp, and manhole. too remote?
What is Hughes v Lord Advocate Not too remote because the type of harm (explosion) was foreseeable the exact way the harm would occur or the extent not necessary.
400
Maximum contrib. for seatbelt? two cases?
What is 25% Froom v Butcher (in common law) and (Snushal v Fulsang) in ontario law.
400
3 accidents in car after minor stroke. To escape liability in negligence, must prove a total lack of control. Should have known after first accident. Consider characteristics of driver or subjective knowledge of medical situation
What is Roberts v Ramsbottom
400
Risk does not have to be fully eliminated but must meet the level a reasonable man would in the circumstances. Sawdust after heavy rain. Case?
What is Latimer v AEC
400
One eyed worker. Custom not to use goggles, so what happens and in what case?
What is Paris v Stepney Borough Council Employer was aware of he only had one eye and failed in their duty to provide goggles (but ok for the two eyed employees)
400
Old boat. Teenager jacked it up, it fell on him. Too remote?
What is Jolley v Sutton London Not too remote, should have known it was an allurement. and House of Lords says risk of physical injury was foreseeable and that is enough. Do not need to define the particular harm, just the type of harm (falling foreseeable, boat falling on him not so much but physical harm foreseeability enough.
500
What is assumption of risk? Latin
What is Violent non fir injuria
500
Hypoglycaemic causes accidents. What standard of care is needed? What case does it overturn? why?
What is Mansfield v Weetabix -Standard of care required of the driver was that which is to be expected of a competent driver unaware that he is suffering from a condition that impairs his driving. -Roberts v Ramsbottom, because it takes situation into account when considering the reasonable standards to avoid liability
500
Had no option but to put out fire. Risk outweighs risk of equipment falling on fighter. Case?
What is Watt v Hertfordshire Co. Council
500
What is res ipsa loquitur? What case involves it?
What is allows an inference of negligence where facts permitted, and not other explanation for accident exists. Fontaine v BC (men at bottom of ravine dead). Kills res ipsa loquitur
500
Grill fire. Patron yells "gas" too remote?
What is Bradford v Kanellos When correct safety measures are in place (sprinklers) and they are operating properly then an improbable outcome results (guy yells gas then stampede) was a nous acts and broke the chain of causation.