Exam 5: Negligence and Unintentional Torts

Richard drank all the beer at the house one evening,and knowing he was not in a fit state to drive,decided to walk down the highway to the beer store for more.In order not to get lost,he followed the centre line on the road.Milton,who was driving too fast for his headlights on low beam,hit Richard from behind,and seriously injured him.

On a cold winter day,A slipped on the icy sidewalk at the entrance to B's shop.A injured her ankle as a result of the fall,and B hired a taxi to have her taken to the hospital to have her injured ankle examined.On the way to the hospital another automobile collided with the taxi,and A was seriously injured.B's actions were too remote to be the cause of the automobile accident in which A received serious injuries.

On a cold winter day,A slipped on the icy sidewalk at the entrance to B's shop.A injured her ankle as a result of the fall,and B hired a taxi to have her taken to the hospital to have her injured ankle examined.On the way to the hospital another automobile collided with the taxi,and A was seriously injured.If A took legal action against B,B might plead volenti non fit injuria as a defence.

On a cold winter day,A slipped on the icy sidewalk at the entrance to B's shop.A injured her ankle as a result of the fall,and B hired a taxi to have her taken to the hospital to have her injured ankle examined.On the way to the hospital another automobile collided with the taxi,and A was seriously injured.The injured ankle was the proximate cause of A's more serious injury in the automobile accident,because B had hired the taxi to send her to the hospital.

Dave and Ray are teammates on their city's rugby team.Ray was injured early in the season and is unable to play for the remainder of the year.Dave forgot his mouthguard on the day of a game and borrowed Ray's mouthguard which,although it was medically formed for Ray's mouth,fit Dave fairly well.During a game Dave received a high tackle and lost several of his teeth.His attempt to sue Ray as well as the mouthguard manufacturer will be successful.

Much attention has been paid recently to the issue of dog attacks,which remain largely subject to a presumption of strict liability for breeds such as pit bulls.

Jacques captured a large rattlesnake while on a camping trip,and brought it home to his apartment in the city.He kept the snake in a glass aquarium which he had covered with a wire screen.One day,after feeding the snake,he accidentally failed to fasten down the screen cover,and the snake escaped from the aquarium.The snake managed to enter the adjoining apartment by way of an open balcony door.The occupant of the adjoining apartment was bitten and seriously injured when she accidentally stepped on the snake. The neighbour was careless in leaving her balcony door open,and therefore,Jacques would not be liable for her injury.

A defendant can receive damages as a result of a tortious act even though he or she may not have experienced any monetary loss.

On a cold winter day,A slipped on the icy sidewalk at the entrance to B's shop.A injured her ankle as a result of the fall,and B hired a taxi to have her taken to the hospital to have her injured ankle examined.On the way to the hospital another automobile collided with the taxi,and A was seriously injured.The court would likely consider what a reasonable person would have done or foreseen in determining the duty of care in this case.

Dave was injured in a hang-gliding accident at a hang-gliding school,and would like to sue the owners of the school.Before they would allow him to take classes,the owners of the school had Dave sign a document which said that the school would not be responsible,legally or physically,for Dave's safety.This kind of document is called a release.

Miss Haversham,a guest at a wedding catered by Giardia's Fine Foods,became violently ill,as did several other guests.It is later found that only those who ate the crab salad appetizer became ill.Since Miss Haversham is not able to prove how she was injured by Giardia's but only that she was injured,presumably by them,which of the following concepts could she use to help her establish Giardia's negligence?

The Sampson Hair Products company issued by a user who contracted a painful rash from using their shampoo.If Sampson manufactured the product in the same way and to the same standard as a reasonable shampoo manufacturer,and the rash was simply the result of an unusual allergy,Sampson will not be held liable.

Jacques captured a large rattlesnake while on a camping trip,and brought it home to his apartment in the city.He kept the snake in a glass aquarium which he had covered with a wire screen.One day,after feeding the snake,he accidentally failed to fasten down the screen cover,and the snake escaped from the aquarium.The snake managed to enter the adjoining apartment by way of an open balcony door.The occupant of the adjoining apartment was bitten and seriously injured when she accidentally stepped on the snake. Jacques would probably be strictly liable for any injury caused by the snake,since he should have foreseen the danger associated with keeping a poisonous snake in confinement.

Miss Haversham,a guest at a wedding catered by Giardia's Fine Foods,became violently ill,as did several other guests.It is later found that only those who ate the crab salad appetizer became ill.If Miss Haversham were to sue for negligence,she would normally have to prove

Sam had a swimming pool in the rear yard of his suburban home.The pool was enclosed on all sides by a 1.2-metre high wire fence,and entry to the pool area was by a gate,which Sam occasionally locked.One day,Sam drained the pool in order to have some repair work done,and accidentally left the gate closed but unlocked.A small four-year-old child who lived in the next house to Sam entered the pool area by climbing over the fence,and was injured when he fell into the empty pool Sam is liable for the injury to the child,because he failed to erect a fence that would prevent the child from entering the pool area.

While at a baseball game one afternoon,Jack bought Matt a hot dog.When Matt bit into the hot dog he broke his tooth on a nail in it. i.Jack cannot sue the hot dog vendor for breach of contract. ii.Matt can sue the hot dog vendor for breach of contract. iii.Jack can sue the hot dog manufacturer under the tort of manufacturer's liability iv.Matt can sue the hot dog manufacturer under the tort of manufacturer's liability. v.The hot dog manufacturer will be strictly liable for allowing an inherently dangerous hot dog to leave his property and injure Matt. vi.Jack can sue for his emotional distress caused by the sight of blood coming from Matt's mouth.

Which of the following is a defence to negligence?

Ping drove his automobile into a parking lot and,in doing so,collided with the side of a parked automobile that was owned by Nelson.Ping has a duty not to damage the automobile owned by Nelson.

Where a negligence harms a business (for example,a factory set on fire),Common Law courts award damages to replace it,but have been reluctant to go further and award damages for economic losses (for example,lost profits from downtime).How do Quebec courts differ in their treatment of negligence?

A and B entered a variety store owned by B.Unknown to A,B,or C the chocolate bar which A gave to B contained a piece of metal that had fallen into the chocolate mix when the candy bar was made.When B attempted to eat the chocolate,she damaged one of her teeth.She was obliged to have the tooth repaired by a dentist,and in addition,lost a day's work because of the painful injury to her mouth.Her total loss amounted to $300.00. The manufacturer of the chocolate bar has strict liability if the product he manufactures causes injury.C.A purchased two chocolate bars from C,and gave one to