9 Pages

Accounting & Financial Management
Course Code
AFM 231
Valerie B Irie

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 9 pages of the document.
READING NOTES Chapter 3 – The Law of Torts Tort derives from French, meaning ‘wrong’. Tort is a wrong, an injury, done by one person to another whether intentional or unintentional. This injury could be physical or financial. Scope of Tort Law • Role of law of torts is to compensate victims for harm suffered from the activities of others while punishment is generally left to criminal law • Basic issue for society is to determine who should bear the loss • Tort law is an instrument for apportioning loss, along with such others as insurance and government compensation schemes Development of Tort Concept • In early society it was common to have strict liability, where anyone who caused direct injury to another had to pay compensation, regardless of fault • Gradually courts began to recognize indirect or consequential injuries • Evolved in two ways o Took into account the fault of the defendant o Took into account the causation, whether the defendant’s conduct could be considered the cause of the harm The Basis for Liability • Fault o Fault refers to blameworthy or culpable (in the wrong) conduct, conduct that in the eyes of the law is unjustifiable because it intentionally or carelessly disregards the interests of others o Justification for liability on fault is in the hopes that it will act as a deterrent • Strict Liability o As mentioned before, strict liability persists in some areas of modern law  People who collect potentially dangerous things on their land are liable for any resulting damage, even if they are blameless  Eg. African Lion Safari case or Dog Owner’s Liability o A person who undertakes a dangerous activity should charge for his service according to the degree of risk, and carry adequate insurance to compensate for possible harm done to others o Note that in Canadian negligence cases, standards of care increase proportionally with danger • Social Policy o The basis of liability, whether fault or strict liability, is a question of policy  Policies change with social standards which consequently force the law to adapt in many ways o The most radical proposals (from the left) would eliminate lawsuits for all personal injuries and compensate victims through a government scheme  Eg. ‘No fault insurance’ which makes insurance compulsory and eliminates fault as a basis for claims  Eg. Worker’s compensation where industrial accidents are seen as inevitable and employers must contribute to a fund • Vicarious Liability o Highlights an area where the law has responded to the pressure of social needs with respect to torts committed by employees in the course of their employment o Vicarious liability involves the liability of an employer to compensate for harm caused by an employee  Eg. If an employer instructs an employee to perform a dangerous task for which he knows the employee is not trained o The employer is liable even when he has given strict instructions to take proper care, or not to do the act that causes the damage o Justifications  Prevents legally harmful demands from being placed upon employees  Employees generally have limited assets available to pay compensations  Based upon fairness, the person who makes the profit should also be liable for the loss Negligence • By far, negligence is the most common basis for legal actions in court • Concept is quite simple, negligence involves anyone who carelessly cause injury to another should compensate the victim for that injury • Elements of a Negligence actions o Defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care (value judgement) o Defendant breached that care (policy and fact) o Defendant’s conduct caused injury to the plaintiff (what is causal) • Note: All three requirements must be established • Duty of Care (Extended) o Principle criterion of duty of care is that the alleged wrongdoer should have foreseen that his actions might do harm o One cannot be expected to anticipate all possible consequences but, “would a normally intelligent and alert person have foreseen that this conduct would have likely caused harm?”  Hunt vs. Sutton • Christmas party with open bar ends with a paraplegic after a drunken employee refused a ride home • Woman drank a lot at the party, then went to the hotel bar after that • Hunt charged her employer with negligence because they knew she was drunk but didn’t do enough to stop her o Plaintiff must go further and establish a duty of care  Duty will arise only where the defendant could reasonably have foreseen a risk of harm to that plaintiff or someone in the plaintiff’s position  Eg. Courier company was not held liable for delivering an article of mail too late for a private sale to be completed as it could not reasonably foresee the delay would cause a loss to some third party outside its relation with the client (not allowed to read the mail!) o Courts have sometimes held that duty of care is owed to persons other than the individual who is directly injured  Eg. Court held driver liable when a mother died by emotional trauma of seeing son hit by the driver because that type of injury was foreseeable o Court will consider any statutes with respect to the matter • Standard of Care (Extended) o Law places a general duty on every person to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable injury to other persons and their property o Standard of care varies according to the activity in question such as a brain surgeon vs. person on the subway o Court must balance competing interests;  Degree of likelihood that harm will result from the activity as well as the potential severity  Social utility of the activity and the feasibility of eliminating the risk • Ie. Where there is danger of a major catastrophe it would be unreasonable not to take every known precaution o Increasingly, legislation not only imposes duties, but also sets out appropriate standard of care (regulations) for particular activities  Eg. Motor Vehicle Owner’s Act • Causation o Must prove that the injury to the plaintiff is caused by the breach of duty o No matter how blameworthy a person’s conduct may have been, he will not be able to be held liable for damage he did not cause o Also, a person will not be held liable for consequences of his acts that are considered to be too remote  Generally, the closer in time to the injury the more likely he is to be found to the cause of the injury o Eg. A man and wife were hurt in a car crash where the wife was severely injured, after crashing the car 2 years later the husband claimed that he crashed his car as a result of depression from the first crash and claimed damages…. The claim was rejected because it was too long after the initial crash • Remoteness of Damage o Foreseeability is a major element, it reappears again when the question of the extent of liability for negligence is considered o Until the 1960’s, the actor was liable for all damage resulting directly from the act  Wagon Mound decision (leaky oil tanker causes fire in harbor) restricted liability to damage that was reasonably foreseeable o Subsequent decisions in Canada have largely restored the earlier position though • Economic Loss o As noted before, the object of tort law is to compensate for loss suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act of another o The remedy of negligence is a sum of money by way of damages  Eg. a plaintiff injured in an auto collision may be compensated not only for physical injuries to herself and the car, but also for economic loss such as lost wages o Two types of cases can be distinguished  Economic loss without any physical damage • eg. Financial loss suffered as a result of negligent misstatement can be recovered  Physical damage, but not to the plaintiff or her property • eg. Tugbout owned by B collides with railway bridge owned by C. Railway company D suffered a loss of profit because it had to re-route traffic and was awarded compensation • Burden of Proof o Burden is on plaintiff must prove his/her case by the balance of probabilities  Injured party need only establish that defendant’s car or product physically caused the injury o Burden then shifts to defendant to show that he was not at fault, by producing evidence that on balance he was not in breach of a duty to the plaintiff (ie. Mechanical failure of brakes) as well as highlighting the plaintiff’s own conduce (below) o Res ipsa loquitur means that “the facts speak for themselves”  Unless defendant can prove otherwise, the most likely cause was the negligent conduct of the defendant • The Plaintiff’s Own Co
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


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.