Textbook Notes (369,082)
Canada (162,376)
Philosophy (290)
Chapter

Cases Summary.docx

11 Pages
156 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
Philosophy 2080
Professor
James Hildebrand

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 11 pages of the document.
Description
Cases Summary Duty of Care Case Summary Trial Appeal SCC/Final Decision Dissent Ratio Donaghue  Plaintiff went to café Defendant Defendant  Does defendant owe a  Common law  You must take vs.  Snail in drink duty of care to plaintiff principles cannot be reasonable care Stevenson  Sued manufacturer for  Extent of duty is changed & that to when proceeding determined by proximity allow this appeal with actions or failing in its duty to “take care” (remoteness) would open too omissions that Objective Reasonable many doors you can Person Standard  He says that there reasonably  Defendant cannot argue can be no special foresee harming that he didn‟t “foresee” duty attaching to the your neighbor potential injury manufacture of food  Neighbors are apart from that persons who are  What would any reasonable person implied by contract reasonably foresee or imposed by foreseeable as Subjective Reasonable statute being affected by Person Standard your actions or  What did this defendant omissions actually know/foresee  A duty of care is not owed to the world at large; it is owed to your neighbors Palsgraf v.  Plaintiff standing on Plaintiff Plaintiff Defendant  Defendant should  There is a Long Isl& platform at station  No duty of care owed accept reasonable limit Railroad  2 men ran to catch  Nothing in the situation consequences of his on the extension Company actions of duty in moving train was thought to have  Second man was potential for peril  If damage caused – negligent acts pulled onto train  Maybe wrong on obviously defendant  If the harm is not  Package dropped & package carrier but not did something wrong willful, then the exploded on train employee  Object to proximate plaintiff must  Damage to plaintiff  Without foreseeability cause for liability – prove that the there is no duty owed should not have to resulting injury  Sued man on train for resulted from an pulling man up foresee exact nature of mishap apparent danger  Sees proximity as a inherent in the act limitation – cant make defendant pay for everything that happens Hay/Bourhill  Plaintiff – 8M pregnant Defendant v. Young  Witnesses accident  Owed no duty to where motorcyclist plaintiff was killed  Defendant was  Had nervous shock & negligible but not baby still-born in relation to  Sued negligent plaintiff motorcyclist  Nervous shock not foreseeable Oke v. Weide Plaintiff Defendant  Plaintiff decreased  When defendant  Even if you are Transport driving on gravel  Defendant Carra  Plaintiff was not cleaned up debris & under a legal duty LTD & Carra shoulder – trying to was negligent in a foreseeable asked store to take pass truck removing or plaintiff attendant about responsibility for  At the end of media – reporting damaged  Surrounding reporting – indicates your negligent he was impaled by sign signage & he did see potential actions, a failure knocked sign layout of road – for danger to act Argument (nonfeasance) to  Plaintiff sued driver & any reasonable company (vicarious person would  If he was not prevent future liability) not be driving negligent in knocking harm is not on gravel sign down – he was negligent if the median not negligent in type of harm that  Damages & leaving it occurred was not injuries are too  Bystander – no legal foreseeable remote to be duty to warn foreseeable  Freak accident Moule v. New  Defendant had high Plaintiff Defendant Defendant  Precautions must Brunswick voltage wires on  Trees are  Plaintiff was not a be taken against Electric towers – cleared trees intriguing to boys – foreseeable plaintiff any reasonable Power at distance from wires they will climb foreseeability of  Precautions by Commission  Was a maple tree (foreseeable) defendant were causing harm below & at distance  Any foreseeable sufficient away from wires child would slip &  Branches near wires fall were trimmed  Person would  Spruce tree nearby – foresee danger & climbable remove trees  Platform from spruce tree led to maple tree Plaintiff reached out & tried to catch wires but instead fell Amos et al. v.  Defendant had power Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff New lines along highway  Had duty of care  Bound by  Nothing unusual – tree Brunswick  Trees located in front  Was foreseeable Moule case limbs were not trimmed Power of plaintiffs house with (close to wires) – no Commission wires passing at top of precautions taken by branches defendant  Boy didn‟t fall – simply  Plaintiff climbed tree & tree swayed & touch climbed wires & got shocked  Injury was foreseeable Standard of Care Case Summary Trial Appeal SCC/Final Decision Dissent Ratio Bolton &  Defendant owned Defendant Plaintiff Defendant Others v. cricket club  Readily foreseeable that accident Stone  Batsman hit cricket might happen ball over fence  Ball goes over fence once every 3 seasons  Ball hit plaintiff standing 100 years  Residential roadway – not a lot of away traffic  Plaintiff sued club for  Test: risk of damage to a person injuries so small that any reasonable man would have thought it right to refrain from taking steps to prevent the danger o How remote chance of injury o How serious the likely injury o Cost of avoiding injury o Social utility Paris v.  Garage mechanical Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff  Duty depends on  Employers have Stepney with 1 good eye –  At trial – employer knew he only had occupation: If a duty to take Borough struck with metal one good eye occupation is more reasonable care Council chip while working dangerous, there is for worker  Would a reasonable employer supply  Injured good eye goggles to a one-eyed workman more duty of care safety with  Syed employer for whose job is dangerous – Yes  More serious damage particular regard not providing  Must weigh risk of injury & extent of if an accident occurs, to each of their goggles damage in deciding what a more precautions must employees‟ reasonable employer would do: be taken circumstances likely, severe, cheap & low social  If there is no duty to utility provide goggles for 2- eyed workers - should not be a duty to provide them to 1- eyed workers  Employer was not negligent it not providing goggles to all workers o Not commonly done o Reasonable person test applies Causation Case Summary Trial Appeal SCC/Final Decision Dissent Ratio McGhee v.  McGhee was an employee at National Defendant Plaintiff National Coal Coal Board, & generally worked  Medical science cannot determine the precise nature Board emptying pipe kilns of the injury  One day he cleaned out brick kilns  Only thing to help is washing  This work caused him to get very  Longer exposure = greater risk sweaty, & powdered brick caked on to  Even if 2 separate cases – good enough if a cause his skin materially contributed to injury  He then biked home without washing,  Plaintiff must show fault of defendant caused or because there were no cleaning facilities materially contributed to injury provided by the employer  Don‟t know exact cause – cant tell if there is material  Developed dermatitis contribution but can tell if there is an increase in risk  Exact way that this disease develops  Riding home without washing added materially to risk was not known at the time of injury  Proven that the washing immediately  Reject argument that materially increasing the risk is after coming out of the kiln would have different from material contribution at least lessened the risk of it Plaintiff developing.  At fault for not providing showers but no causation (couldn‟t show material contribution)  Washing is standard practice in industry – showers should have been provided – showed foreseeable increase in risk of injury  Open to defendants to prove actions didn‟t cause injury  Onus on defendants to prove lack of causation Lauritzen v.  Plaintiff & defendant worked together Plaintiff Barstead  Drove into town  Defendant was negligible in grabbing wheel, in  Defendant got drunk & stayed at the driving further along, in drinking & in backing up car bars  Novus Actus Interveniens: Rejects argument that  Came out with beer cases & put them plaintiff interrupted the chain of events by getting out into the car & asked plaintiff to drive of the car when it got stuck – leaving keys in the Remoteness  Told plaintiff he wanted more beer on ignition for defendant when plaintiff knew he was the road drunk  Plaintiff only did what he could fix things  Plaintiff refused – defendant grabbed wheel & car went off road  Legal issues  Had to drive into deep ditch o Been argued that whatever injury is directly  Plaintiff went to sleep in the back seat caused is responsibility of defendant with keys in ignition o Places emphasis on causation  Defendant drove car into river – got o Rejected – liability is determined by more stuck foreseeability o As reasonable man – should have foreseen  Plaintiff could not go to help & had to consequences on a cold night & on slippery come back to car  Stuck in the car until Monday road  Plaintiff lost 1 foot & toes on other &  No claim for loss of wife frostbite to face & hands o Unforeseeable  Defendant lost 2 feet  Sued for injury & loss of his wife Quantum of Damages (Not Solace) Case Summary Trial Appeal SCC/Final Decision Dissent Ratio Andrew v.  Plaintiff was Plaintiff  Pecuniary loss: Plaintiff  Full compensation Gr& & Toy injured in motor  Determinations wanting to live at  Home care isn‟t a luxury is paramount vehicle accident about damages home is most  Proper compensation for someone who concern of courts at age 21  Defendant expensive option would have been able to take care of in cases of  Defendant & wholly liable & (defendant point himself at home if he wasn‟t injured severely injured employer partially accepted of view)  Courts should have no control over the victims liable plaintiff‟s  Shouldn‟t be plaintiff's expenditure of the award  Damage awards request for granted should serve a  Lost all function  Problem: life expectancy & of legs, trunk & damages compensation for contingencies of life useful function; almost  every loss – cant o Lump sum damage awards – don‟t neither high completely live at expense of know what will happen in the future compensation for disabled – defendant for 50 (increase or decrease award) pain & suffering requires constant years  Problem: duplication nor punitive care  Gov‟t hospitals – o Cannot recover for cost of basic awards help free of cost plaintiff, but they  Normal mental necessities & full wage loss – functions  Plaintiff might thought plaintiff would spend wage do unfairly burden use damages for on living – duplication the defendant other purposes  Non-Pecuniary Loss  Reduced monthly o No medium of exchange for care costs happiness  Reference to o 3 ways of deciding: insurance  Conceptual (foot worth x$) availability  Personal (loss of happiness by particular victim)  Functional (money cant replace happiness but can provide “reasonable solace”  Problem: limits o Traditionally: under 10 k o SCC upper limit: 100k o Inflation – number over 200k still can happen Special Issues Case Summary Trial Appeal SCC/Final Decision Dissent Ratio Mathews et  Defendant & guests had Plaintiff Defendant  Duty to rescue as  MacLaren was under al. v. consumed alcohol & were  Defendant was  Duty on defendant – master of vessel duty to carry out MacLaren on boat negligent in improper rescue method  No breach of duty rescue with due care & performing his failure to employ Horsely et al.  Matthews was on foredeck,  Delay in proper rescue caused or contributed Horsley & others in cabin rescue – bow on caused situation of peri to death of Matthews standard rescue v. Maclaren below method was  Issue of duty: captain of  If you create a procedures brought  Matthews fell overboard proper procedure ship‟s duty to take situation of peril then Horsley into the  Defendant stopped boat,  Given negligent reasonable steps to you owe a duty & that situation backed up, turned boat off rescue attempt – rescue passenger – duty duty is extended to  Common law duty of to drift – wrong procedure wrongful action to do reasonably so rescuers because they care of a private caused Horsely carrier to his D uty to  Jones threw in life-ring &  Legal obligation to rescue are reasonably Rescue tried to save him to jump in is immaterial – once foreseeable passengers – &  Matthews in water &  Wrongful act undertaken – through  But the judge decides statutory duty of care unconscious created situation negligence created that MacLaren did not under s526(1) of  Horsley jumped in of peril situation of peril create a situation of Canada Shipping Act  Liability to a  Standard was too high peril & he was not  None of these basis of  Mrs. Jones saw Matthews & rescuer unless (textbook perfection) – negligent liability are within the dove in original principle of  Mr. Jones took over boat rescue attempt doesn‟t have to be perfect  If he made any errors controls, turned boat was futile & in high stress environment they were of judgment „rescue‟ - legal around, effected rescue of wanton exposure  Defendant did make not negligence protection is afforded wife from “bow on” position to danger Matthews situation any  Therefore he is not to one who risks injury  Defendant took over  Horsely‟s worse – no liability to liable to himself in going to conduct was Matthews  Don‟t have a duty to the rescue of another controls, rescued Horsley reasonable – who has been same way, i.e. “bow on”  Not foreseeable that rescuer unless you foreseeably exposed  Horsley died from heart foreseeable rescue attempt would breach the standar
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


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