Class Notes (806,431)
Canada (492,249)
LAW 122 (807)
Jane Monro (19)

Chapter 6 Negligence

4 Pages
Unlock Document

Ryerson University
Law and Business
LAW 122
Jane Monro

Chapter 6 NegligenceTort of Negligence determines whether the defendant can be held liable for carelessly causing the plaintiff to suffer a loss or injury Example investment broker gives bad advice manufacturer produces a drink that makes consumer sick inaccurate report that leads to loss etcPlaintiff must prove that defendant owed a duty of care in that it was required to act carefully to the plaintiff breached the standard of care by acting carelessly cause harm to the plaintiffDefendant may show that the plaintiff in order to AVOID liability was guilty of contributory negligence that caused or contributed to the injury voluntarily assumed the risk of being injured by the defendant was injured while engaged in some form of illegal behavior Important Side Notes 1 The cause of action in negligence is flexible enough to reflect different types of situations The standard of care requires the defendant to act as a reasonable person would act in similar circumstances Therefore professional negligence makes sense in the aspect that it refers to the special considerations that shape the general cause of action in negligence when it is applied to professional people 2 The tension between the desire to provide compensation and the desire to encourage society useful activities appears commonly in negligence because that cause of action is so flexible Pregnant women does not owe a duty of care to unborn child but everyone else doesDuty of Care Duty of Care exists if the defendant is required to use reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiffTest for determining existence of Duty of CareJudge will ask whether or not the duty of care question has already been answered for the particular types of case that is being litigatedIf it has not then it will be necessary to ask three questions Was it reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff could be injured by the defendants carelessness Did the parties share a relationship of sufficient proximity If an injury was reasonably foreseeable and if the parties shared a relationship of sufficient proximity then a duty of care presumably will exist Judge may deny a duty of care on the basis of policy reasonsReasonable Foreseeability the test is objective does not matter if defendant personally knew that its activities might injure the plaintiff it IS whether a reasonable person in the defendants position would have recognized that possibilityProximity there must somehow be a close and direct connection between the parties Must take into consideration whether the parties shared a social relationship friends parents whether the parties shared a commercial relationship business whether there was a direct casual
More Less

Related notes for LAW 122

Log In


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


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.