Class Notes (836,580)
Canada (509,856)
Business (3,286)
BU231 (319)
Valerie Irie (103)
Lecture 2

Lecture 2 - Negligence.docx

7 Pages
167 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Business
Course
BU231
Professor
Valerie Irie
Semester
Winter

Description
Lecture 2 Negligence Ethics & The Workplace • Difficulties faced by both employees and employers in avoiding unethical behaviour • Incrementalism – One small step … • Overconfidence Bias – Who’s a better driver? Negligence • Negligence is the careless causing of harm to the person or property of another • No intention to commit tort • The object of tort law: • To place the injured party back in the position s/he would’ve been had the tortious act not occurred • Three part test for negligence: 1. The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; o In order to meet elements of negligence, plaintif must demonstrate owed duty of care 2. The defendant breached that duty of care by falling below the standard of care; and 3. The defendant’s actions caused the injury 1. Duty Of Care • Need to explain what a duty of care is, show how it is unintentional The legal duty imposed on everyone: – To take reasonable care to avoid injury to others – The injury must be reasonably forseeable • Huge aspect, must be able to see somewhat that the event could have happened – The duty is not all encompassing – you must owe a duty to the other person – Legal obligation placed on everyone to take care to avoid causing injury to others The Good Neighbour Principle – Donaghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 – Everyone has a duty to not injure their neighbour – “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour” Neighbour in law: – “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question…” – When you are going to do something, must consider whether the action could affect someone and if so, then the potential affectee is owed a duty of care – Doesnt have to be only physical proximity – Being so close to injured party can allow for tort action to be taken Test for Duty of Care: 1. Is there a sufficiently close relationship between the parties…so that, in the reasonable contemplation of the [defendant], carelessness on its part might cause damage to that person? If so, 2. Are there any considerations which ought to negative or limit – The scope of the duty; and – The class of persons to whom it is owed; or – The damages to which a breach of it may give rise – Are there any reasons that there ought to be a limit as to whether they owe a duty of care • Duty of Care: – Good neighbour principle – Who is a neighbour in law? – Reasonable foreseeability – Socially valuable policy reasons that may limit the scope of the duty 2. Standard Of Care • What is the standard of care? – The level of care everyone must take to avoid injuring their neighbour – Established in law in Canada that the average standard for everybody is a reasonable ordinary person • Special standards of care: – The reasonable and competent person in a specific profession – where someone requires specialized skill and knowledge • Can only compare these people to someone who is competent and dilligent in that profession • I.e. Someone has a heart attack, not held to same standards of care as someone such as a doctor who has the skills – The professional standard of care* – The fiduciary* – Children – the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, unless engaged in an adult activity • Cannot hold child to same standard of care as an adult • Dont have the knowledge to properly foresee, compare to reasonable child of comparable age • In law, infant = anyone under the age of 18 • If engaged in adult activity (i.e. driving), compared to reasonable average adult • You cannot determine if a person has fallen below the standard of care if you do not first determine what the appropriate standard is in any given situation – Must always define what the appropriate standard is with regards to the situation, in order to determine if the defendant is liable • Other factors the court will consider in determining the standard of care: – Degree of likelihood that harm would occur – The potential severity of the harm – The social utility of the action involved – The feasibility of eliminating the risk 3. Causation • If there is no harm/loss – there is no tort • “But For” test • Would the injury have occurred “but for” for the conduct of the defendant? If yes, then this is the cause of the loss/harm • If the defendant had not done this action, would the plaintiff still have received harm? • The defendant does not have to be the sole cause of the harm, if is sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct was a cause of the harm/loss • Blaming a 3rd party does not negate ones liability, instead must ensure you are not liable • Remoteness • The conduct of the defendant cannot be too removed/remote from the harm caused • Not liable if the harm caused was due to a strong in
More Less

Related notes for BU231

Log In


OR

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