Study Guides (238,407)
Canada (115,131)
Philosophy (363)

Cases Summary.docx

13 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Philosophy 2080
James Hildebrand

Cases Summary Duty of CareCase SummaryTrialAppeal SCCFinal Decision Dissent Ratio Donaghue Defendant Defendant Plaintiff went to caf Does defendant owe a Common law You must take vs duty of care to plaintiff principles cannot be reasonable care Snail in drink Stevenson changedthat to when proceeding Extent of duty is Sued manufacturer for allow this appeal with actions or determined by proximity failing in its duty to would open too omissions that remoteness take care many doorsyou can Objective Reasonable reasonably He says that there Person Standard foresee harming can be no special Defendant cannot argue your neighborduty attaching to the that he didnt foresee Neighbors are manufacture of food potential injury apart from that persons who are What would any implied by contract reasonably reasonable person foreseeable as or imposed by foreseestatutebeing affected by Subjective Reasonable your actions or Person Standard omissionsWhat did this defendant A duty of care is actually knowforesee not owed to the world at large it is owed to your neighborsPalsgraf v Plaintiff Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff standing on Defendant should There is a Long Isl No duty of care owed platform at station accept reasonable limit Railroad consequences of his on the extension 2 men ran to catch Nothing in the situation Company actions of duty in moving train was thought to have negligent actsIf damage causedpotential for peril Second man was If the harm is not obviously defendant Maybe wrong on pulled onto train did something wrong willful then the package carrier but not Package droppedplaintiff must Object to proximate on train employee explodedprove that the cause for liabilityWithout foreseeability resulting injury Damage to plaintiff should not have to there is no duty owed resulted from an foresee exact nature Sued man on train for apparent danger of mishap pulling man up inherent in the actSees proximity as a limitationcant make defendant pay for everything that happens HayBourhill Defendant Plaintiff8M pregnantv Young Owed no duty to Witnesses accident plaintiff where motorcyclist was killedDefendant was Had nervous shocknegligible but not baby stillborn in relation to plaintiff Sued negligent Nervous shock not motorcyclist foreseeable Oke v Weide Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff decreased When defendant Even if you are Transport Defendant Carra Plaintiff was not driving on gravel cleaned up debrisunder a legal duty LTDCarra shouldertrying to was negligent in a foreseeable asked store to take pass truck removing or plaintiff attendant about responsibility for your negligent reporting damaged reportingindicates At the end of mediaSurrounding sign he did see potential actions a failure he was impaled by signagefor danger to act knocked sign layout of roadArgument nonfeasance toany reasonablePlaintiff sued driverprevent future If he was not person would company vicarious harm is not not be driving negligent in knocking liability negligent if the on gravel sign downhe was type of harm that median not negligent in occurred was not leaving it Damagesforeseeable Bystanderno legal injuries are too remote to be duty to warn foreseeable Freak accidentMoule v New Plaintiff Defendant Defendant Defendant had high Precautions must Brunswick Trees are intriguing Plaintiff was not a voltage wires on be taken against Electric towerscleared trees to boysthey will foreseeable plaintiff any reasonable Power at distance from wires climb foreseeableforeseeability of Precautions by Commission causing harmWas a maple tree Any foreseeable defendant were belowat distance child would slipsufficient away from wires fall Branches near wires Person would were trimmed foresee dangerremove trees Spruce tree nearbyclimbable Platform from spruce tree led to maple tree Plaintiff reached outtried to catch wires but instead fell Amos et al v PlaintiffDefendant PlaintiffDefendant had power New Had duty of care Bound by Nothing unusualtree lines along highwayBrunswick Moule case limbs were not trimmed Trees located in front Was foreseeable Power close to wiresno of plaintiffs house with Commission precautions taken by wires passing at top of defendant branches Boy didnt fallsimply Plaintiff climbed treeclimbed
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

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.