Tort Law

Topics: Negligence, Tort, Tort law Pages: 136 (47493 words) Published: September 13, 2013
tort law
INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE…………………………………………….........4 Buchan v. Ortho Pharmaceutical (Canada) Ltd Hollis v. Dow Corning Cor
Tobacco Tort Cases in Ontario
(1) THE DUTY OF CARE: GENERAL PRINCIPLES……………………………………………….....6 (a) An Introduction to the Concept of Duty……………………………………………………...6
(i) General Duty of Care Test……………………………………………………………..6 Donoghue v. Stevenson (sets out general neighbour DoC)
(ii) Development of the Modern Law Notion of Duty…………………………………….7 Nt - Modern Law of Duty and Canada
(iii) Anns and the Supreme Court of Canada……………………………………………...7 Cooper v. Hobart (clarifies Anns test)
Nt - Odhavji v. Woodhouse, Bella v. Young
(b) Foreseeable Risk of Injury…………………………………………………………………….8 Moule v. N.B. Elec. Power Comm’n
(c) The Foreseeable Plaintiff Test………………………………………………………………...8 Palsgraf v. Long Island Ry. Co.
John T. Noonan, Persons and Masks of the Law (1-ii) NONFEASENCE: DUTIES OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION………………………………………9 (a) An Introduction of Nonfeaseance…………………………………………………......………9
(b) The Duty to Rescue…………………………………………………………………………….9
Osterlind v. Hill (no duty to rescue)
Matthews v. MacLaren; Horsley v. MacLaren (expectation of rescue shifting)
(c) The Duty to Control the Conduct of Others………………………………………………...10 Jordan House
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd. (broadening of alcohol liability)
Stewart v. Pettie (alcohol-related liability is narrowed here)
Liquor License Act, s. 39
Hunt v. Sutton Incentive Realty (employer resp. of intoxicated employees)
Childs v. Desormeaux (social hosts not resp)
(d) The Duty of Police Officers…………………………………………………………………..12
Jane Doe v. Metro Toronto Comm. of Police (Duty to act expanded with police) Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1-iii) SPECIAL DUTIES OF CARE……………………………………………………………………..13 (a) The Duty of Care Owed to Rescuers………………………………………………………...13

Horsley v. MacLaren
(b) Duties to the Unborn – 4 categories…………………………………………………………14
Dobson v. Dobson
(c) Nervous Shock………………………………………………………………………………...15
Rhodes v. Canadian National Railway
Strong v. Moon
Bechard v. Haliburton Estate
Mason v. Westside Cemeteries
Anderson v. Wilson
Vanek v. Great Atlantic & Pacific C. of Canada
(2) THE STANDARD OF CARE…………………………………………………………………………17 (a)The Reasonable Person Test (Common Law Standard of Care)…………………………..17 Arland v. Taylor
(b)Factors Considered in Determining Breach of the Standard of Care……………………..17
Bolton v. Stone (probability and severity)
Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (severity)
Vaughan v. Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Comm. (cost of risk avoidance)
Law Estate v. Simice (cost of risk avoidance w/medical forum)
Watt v. Hertfordshire (social utility)
U.S. v. Caroll Towing Co (an economic analysis of the SoC)
(c)Special Standards of Care……………………………………………………………………20
Fiola v. Cechmanek (SoC for mental disability)
Joyal v. Barsby (SoC for children)
White v. Turner (SoC for professionals)
Buchan v. Ortho Pharmaceutical (Canada) Ltd (SoC for med manufact) Hollis v. Dow Corning Cor (SoC for med manufact) (d) The Role of Custom…………………………………………………………………………..22

Ter Neuzen v. Korn
Girard v. General Hospital of Port Arthur
(3) CAUSATION…………………………………………………………………………………………...23
(a) Determining the Cause-in-Fact – the But-For Test………………………………………...23 Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Mgmt. Cttee (but-for test)
Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd. v. Haynes (but-for test)...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Tort Law Essay
  • Tort Law Research Paper
  • Tort Law Essay
  • Essay about Law of Tort
  • Essay about Law of tort
  • Law of Tort Essay
  • Essay on Tort Law : Causation
  • In considering the facts above make some legal observations on the following Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free