Exam 5: Unintentional Interference With Persons or Property

A and B entered a variety store owned byC. A purchased two chocolate bars from C, and gave one toB. 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. B may take legal action against A, since it was A who gave her the chocolate bar.

The basic premise upon which tort liability is founded is that individuals and corporations living in a civilized society will not (and should not) intentionally cause injury to one another or others' property.

Jacqui and Penny decided to go into partnership in a small baseball equipment manufacturing firm. Jacqui raised $250,000 start-up funds, in large part on the basis of documents which she forged. These documents purported to show that they owned their factory, when in fact, they merely leased it. Jacqui spent all of the money on herself, and she now has no assets and has been jailed for 10 years. The creditors have contacted Penny and told her they will hold her liable for the loss.

As a result of an explosion while plugging the Wonder "C" Model widget into an electrical socket, Tina was left in a coma for nine years. When she regained consciousness, she wished to bring legal action against the manufacturer, ACME Widget Co., for her injuries. She did not remember much about the events that surrounded the explosion. While doing some research for her case she discovered that there had been an electrical storm on the evening she was using the Wonder "C" when it exploded. Which of the following legal principles would the manufacturer of the widget not be entitled to use?

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. The child's parents would be entirely at fault for allowing the child to enter on Sam's property without supervision.

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.

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 had not warned his neighbours that the pool had been drained of water.

While demolishing a building using a crane and wrecking ball, Thompson, an employee of Bashett's Wrecking Co., accidentally hit Marsden's car, which was parked nearby in a laneway, and totally demolished it. Marsden, who fortunately was not in the car at the time, wishes to sue. a. Who should she sue and why? b. If she is successful, against whom will she execute judgement, and why is that permitted and reasonable?

Dennis is the owner of a successful real estate company. His agents are provided with automobiles so they can complete deals more efficiently. One of Dennis' employees takes poor care of his car and frequently produces mechanic's bills for repairs. The last bill indicated that the car was no longer mechanically safe for the road. The employee, when confronted by Dennis with the threat of legal action if he did not repay the excessive maintenance costs for the car, was uncooperative. Shortly thereafter the car, which was occupied by the employee driver and a prospective buyer, skidded out of control seriously injuring the client and destroying the vehicle. With Dennis facing legal action by the client, the employee showed no remorse, refused to compensate for any damages and again dismissed Dennis' threats of legal action.

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?

Arthur, who is a member of the maintenance staff of Gordon's Mall, was mending one of the revolving entry doors when he realised that he was missing an essential tool. He placed an "Out of Order" sign on the door, and went to get the tool. Due to an emergency caused by a washroom flood, he was gone for longer than he expected. Not long after he left, the sign fell off the door, and, while Susan, Antoinette and Gloria were entering, the door collapsed, seriously injuring all three women. Susan was on her way to the pet store to buy cat food, Antoinette came to the mall to get decorating ideas from the paint and wallpaper shop, but was not going to buy anything, and Gloria, thinking she was dying, confessed that she was on her way to rob the jewellery store. a. Who would they sue and why? b. Identify what, if any, duty of care is owed to each woman, and discuss whether any of them could win a negligence suit.

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 would be liable for the injury suffered by A when A slipped on the sidewalk in front of his shop, because he should have foreseen the possibility of injury to customers when he failed to remove the ice.

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.

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.

A highly corrosive liquid that is stored on the property of Acme Waste Disposal leaks from its container and seeps into the foundations of the business next door, badly damaging the building. Acme will be liable only if the injured party can prove Acme was negligent.

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 has strict liability for any injury to A, because he was the owner of the sidewalk.

Teresa is suing the Driver Trucking Co. because she was injured when one of their trucks negligently crashed into the bus shelter in which she was standing. Since Driver Trucking can do nothing to protect itself from its driver's negligence, it is unfair to hold the company liable for its employee's actions.

The Central Hospital, Dr. Cuttham, a surgeon, and the operating room staff are sued by Mrs. Mullen because a scalpel was left in her abdomen after an operation for a burst appendix. It is unclear how the scalpel was missed. i. The hospital will be liable if the operating room staff employed by it is found to have been negligent. ii. Mrs. Mullen must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants had the sole care and control of the operating room. iii. Mrs. Mullen must prove on the balance of probabilities that, unless someone has been negligent, scalpels are not left in abdomens after operations. iv. Mrs. Mullen must prove on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable surgeon has a duty of care to ensure that no foreign objects are left inside a patient, that Dr. Cuttham failed to do, and that she was injured because of this. v. Dr. Cuttham will be held liable if he cannot show that he took all reasonable care and the scalpel was left by someone else.

Terri was injured by an exploding pop bottle. She lost time from work, for which she was not paid, and had to undergo several painful operations. Her right eye was badly damaged and she will lose the sight in it over the next few years. If she wins her case against the manufacturer of the pop bottle, she will be entitled to i. an injunction. ii. an order of replevin. iii. nominal damages iv. punitive damages. v. special damages vi. general damages.

A community ice rink posted a sign at the facility stating that persons using the rink are responsible for damage or injury which they may incur. While taking a break from a hockey game, Wayne took a seat on the bench. A faulty light used to illuminate the ice surface exploded causing severe burns to Wayne. Using the principles of volenti non fit injuria and res ipsa loquitur discuss the success of Wayne's attempt to sue the community.