Textbook Chapter 11.docx

4 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Management and Organizational Studies
Management and Organizational Studies 2275A/B
Philip King

Chapter 11 – The Tort of Negligence The Law of Negligence  What is Negligence?  Define:A careless act that causes harm to another.  The law understands carelessness as a failure to show RESONABLE CARE – the care a reasonable person would  Who has suffered loss by relying on poor advice provided by an accountant, lawyer, architect, or engineer  Whose furniture has been damaged in transit by a moving company  Like tort law in general – seeks to compensate victims for their loss or injury  Steps to a NegligenceAction  Step 1: Does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty ofIf yes, proceed to the next step.  Duty of care: the responsibility owed to avoid carelessness that causes harm to others  Neighbor principle: a defendant owes a duty of care to anyone who might reasonably be affected by the defendant’s conduct  LANDMARK CASE: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) Factual Background: Donoghue’s friend bought her a ice cream and a bottle of ginger beer. Later, he found there was a decomposed snail in the bottle. She became ill and sued the manufacture for damages, based on negligence Resolution: Manufactures lost based on the following statement: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. Who is my neighbor? Person who is so closely and directly affected by my act.”  Stage 1: Is there a prima初步印象;乍看的 duty of care? a. Is the harm that occurred a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s act? b. Is there a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties such that it would not be unjust or unfair to impose a duty of care on the defendant?  Stage 2: Are there residual policy considerations outside the relationship of the parties that may eliminate or reduce the imposition of a duty of care? - Objective: ensure that businesses and other defendants are not made liable to an unreasonably broad, unknowable, and indeterminate extent - Considerations are more likely arise in pure economic loss than in case of physical harm  Step 2: Did the Defendant Breach the Standard of Care?  The standards of care: a reasonable person is regarded as being an ordinary person of normal intelligence who use ordinary prudence in guide his conduct  THE RESONABLE PERSON IS NOT PERFECT  Professionals exercise specialized skills are not applied to the above rule  Where the activity or product poses a high risk , the law imposes a higher standard of care  Step 3: Did the Defendant’s Careless Act (or Omission) Cause the Plaintiff’s injury?  If causatio因果关系 cannot be determined, ask the following question: Would the harm not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions?  Case: Kauffman v Toronto Transit Commission [1980] SCR 251 Factual Background: Mr. Kauffman was using the escalator owned by the TTC. The escalator was equipped with a metal-clad handrail instead of the rubber type. Several youths pushed each others, and one fell on her, which caused her injuries. She sued the TTC for damages, claiming that it had been negligent in stalling an untested handrail made of metal. Resolution: TTC did not cause the loss suffered by Kauffman. The cause of the fall was the negligent conduct of the youths who fell on her. The nature of the handrail though not as effective as a rubber one, but did not contribute to the accident. Furthermore, the TTC did not owe a duty to supply supervision of those using the escalator.  Step 4: Was the Injury Suffered by the Plaintiff Too Remote?  Remoteness of damage: The absence of a sufficiently close relationship between the defendant’s action and the plaintiff’s injury  Case: Spagnolo v Margesson’s Sports Ltd (1983) Factual Background: A customers car was stolen from parking lot due to the negligence of the parking lot owner in keeping the keys safely secured. Six days later, the thief was in an accident with the plaintiff while driving the stolen car. The plaintiff sued the owner of the parking lot. Resolution: The damages to the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the parking lot owner’s negligence, particularly given that the accident occurred so long after the theft.  Thin Skull Rule: the principle that a defendant is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff’s injury even where a prior vulnerability makes the harm more serious than it otherwise might be  Case: Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd. 2008 SCC 27 Factual Background: Mustapha was a customer of Culligan, a manufacturer and supplier of drinking water. He found that there was a dead fly in a bottle. He became obsessed with the dead fly and worried about his family’s health. Resolution: The manufacture did owed a duty of care to Mustapha to provide clean water and that it breached the standard of care. However, the mental injury would not occur in the ordinary persona faced with a dead fly; therefore, the think skull rule did not apply.  Traditionally, tort law is reluctant to permit s recovery for pure economic loss.  When a person is in a contractual relationship causes someone else to suffer a financial detriment only, such a loss is generally not recoverable. Defences to a NegligenceAction  Contributory Negligence  Define: the plaintiff contributed partially caused the injuries that wer
More Less

Related notes for Management and Organizational Studies 2275A/B

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.