Class Notes (786,821)
Canada (482,297)
LAW 122 (781)
Gil Lan (3)
Lecture

Law 122 - Chapter 6.docx

5 Pages
157 Views
Unlock Document

School
Ryerson University
Department
Law and Business
Course
LAW 122
Professor
Gil Lan
Semester
Winter

Description
Chapter 6 November-10-11 3:34 PM The Tort of Negligence  Determines whether the defendant can be held liable for carelessly causing injury to the plaintiff  Must Prove:  Owed a duty of care  Breached standard of care  Caused harm to plaintiff Professional Negligence: is simply negligence committed by a professional; such as banker, lawyer, or accountant Duty of Care:  Exists if the defendant is required to use reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiff  Obligation to use care to avoid harm to plaintiff  Reasonable Foresee-ability:  Weather if a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have recognized the possibility  EX: delivery of envelope, for a regular person, they would not assume that if the envelope was delivered late, it would cause them 1000000$  Proximity:  There must somehow be a close and direct connection between the parties Types of Connections:  physical (eg hit by swung baseball bat)  social (eg bond between parent and child)  commercial (eg alcohol sold to driver)  causal (eg loss occurred without other factors)  reliance (eg reasonable use of financial advice)  In business context, the best example concerns negligent statements  acts vs words  need for precaution less clear with words  “words are more volatile than deeds”  Because actions happens at a specific time and space  But words can cause damage in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class  words more likely to cause pure economic loss  EX: taking professional advice and making investments  liability more likely if  defendant claimed special knowledge  Such as a professional  statement communicated on serious occasion  During a business meeting, and not an informal party  statement made in response to inquiry  They were asked to make a statement  defendant received financial benefit  They got paid for it  statement of fact rather than pure opinion  They are facts or based on facts  liability less likely if  statement accompanied by disclaimer  A person would not generally rely on a statement if the speaker was unwilling to assume responsibility for Policy  focus on legal, social, political concerns  effect of policy  even if reasonable foreseeability…  even if close proximity… o duty of care rejected for external reasons  The policy would have to consider:  If the court does recognition of duty of care o Would it "open a floodgates" o Interfere with political decision o Hurt a valuable type of relationship (mother/unborn child) Breach of the Standard of Care  It tells the defendant how to act, it is breached when the defendant acts less carefully  Reasonable person test: o Requires the defendant to act in the same way that a reasonable person would act in similar circumstances o defendant cannot hide behind own deficiencies o plaintiff entitled to expect reasonable conduct o standard applied at time of alleged breach (no hindsight) reasonable person adjusts conduct to situation   reasonable foreseeability of risk o any realistic risk may require precaution  likelihood and severity of loss o more care if great danger of great harm (eg plane crash)  affordability o more care if inexpensive precaution (eg cab door locks)  social utility o less care if socially valuable activity (eg ambulance)  sudden peril doctrine o less care if emergency (eg rescue from fire) Standard of Care: Professional Negligence  professional negligence  must act as reasonable professional  no allowance for inexperience o They must live up to their training...  no allowance for exaggerated credentials o ...or claim to have received  enhanced standard for specialist or expert o More may be expected  Cannot judge the defendant's action in hindsight o Based on the information that was reasonable available at the time of the accident  Carelessness is different from error of judgment o EX: a surgeon will not be held liable for incorrectly choosing one procedure over another if a reasonable physician might have done the same  compliance with approved practice  generally evidence of reasonable care o unless approved practice itself is careless  conclusive evidence if complex technical matter  compliance with a statutory standard may also protect a defendant  But if there's a breach of statutory standard, it "may" be evidence that the standard of care was breached, but "not must" Standard of Care: Product Liability  Occur if a person is injured by a product  American approach = strict liability o manufacturer liable for any defects o Better ensure that consumers are compensated for injuries o Encourage manufacturers to develop safer products c. Require manufacturer to pay for losses that they cause as a result of selling their product
More Less

Related notes for LAW 122

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.

Submit