Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
Ryerson (30,000)
LAW (1,000)
LAW 122 (900)

chap 6

Law and Business
Course Code
LAW 122
Avi Weisman

of 4
Chapter 6: Negligence
3 for plaintiff
1 for defendant
Plaintiff must prove all:
1. Duty of Care: required use reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiff.
a. Does have to purchase as long as they use the their services/product.
b. Duty of care= possible liability, no duty of care= no liability
Criteria fro duty of care:
1) Reasonable foreseeability: did defendant know what was happening could injure plaintiff
a. Cant be held liable if you have no way of knowing is there would be a harm that
would be caused
b. Case6.1 (pg132): suffer loss if not delivered by certain date. Agree with carrier to
send by certain date, but not the loss otherwise not delivered by certain date. Carrier
not liable, cause they didn’t know the loss.
2) Proximity (relationship): factors to look at:
a. Social relationship
:(the parent is required to raise kid, but not random stranger)
b. Commercial relationship
:(bar tavern responsible if drunken customer causes
accident after, but not a house party host)
c. Direct casual connection
hit car on bridge. Bridge is closed for a day. Responsible for
fixing the bridge, but not the lost profit of business on the other side of the bridge
who received fewer customers that day.
d. Defendant represented that it would act in a certain way. The plaintiff relied on the
defendant to act in this way.
3) Policy
a. Might be denied based on a policy ground or it might:
i. Encourage lot of people to sue
ii.Interfere with political decisions
iii.Hurt a valuable relationship
1. Breach of Standard of care: tell the defendant how they spouse to act
a. Reasonable person test
b. Objective
c. Only exception is children, mentally disabled people are still judged the same
d. Product liability: when person injured by product
i. In a contract Liability is strict, don’t have to prove carelessness, there just needs to
be a defect in the product which caused harm
ii.When not in a contract it is not strict, and needs to prove carelessness
Product liability parts:
1. Manufacture
a. Carelessly manufactured product (i.e snail in beer bottle)
b. Isolated problem: broad scope of liability
2. Design
a. Wide spread problem: narrower scope of liability
3. Failure to warn
a. Failure to warn of harm.
b. The intended use (glue is not spouse to be sniffed)
1. Causation of harm
if the defendant would have not acted the carelessly would it still suffer same loss
NO: defendants fault
YES: defendant not responsible
If its too remote it would be unfair to hold the defendant responsible for it/
Thin skull: hit head, but suffer more than a normal person
Interviewing act: defendants carelessness makes the plaintiff to additional injury
The first injury may cause and increase in the risk of the additional injury’
Defendant may prove: defenses