6.1 - Legal Concepts Between Parties in a Liability Lawsuit Flashcards
Describe the various legal concepts that exist between parties in a liability lawsuit
Proximate Cause
-the negligence of the defendant must be the effective or ‘proximate cause’ of the injury or damage
-in other words, there must be an uninterrupted unfolding of events, from the initial act to the conclusion, without the intervention of another cause
-if there is no intervening cause, there may be a chain of events leading from the negligence to the injury, and the original negligence may still be the proximate cause
-a prime example of this is found in the English case ‘Scott v. Shepherd’. In this case, the defendant threw a lighted firecracker (squib) into a crowded market, where it fell on a stall. The occupier of the stall threw it away to avoid danger and it fell on another stall, where it was similarly thrown away. This happened several times until the firecracker eventually exploded, causing injury to the plaintiff. The defendant who lit and threw the firecracker in the first place was held liable. The court felt that the others did not act unreasonably in the emergency situation that was created, they would not have been in the position of having to throw the firecracker if the first individual had not started the chain of events
-the issue of proximate cause was upheld in case law in ‘The King v. Laperriere’. In this case, the Cnd Army had left some explosives on a site where children found them and proceeded to set them off and were seriously hurt in the process. The Supreme Court held that the Army was responsible since it was foreseeable that abandoning explosives would cause injury. There was negligence, which set into motion a string of events leading directly and without interruption to the injury
-the issue of intervening cause because of a break in the chain of events was upheld in case law in ‘Beaudoin v. T.W. Hand Fireworks’ Here the defendant had unknowingly left a pyrotechnic stick unexploded and children found it. The father of one of the children discovered what had happened and confiscated the firecracker, and he handed it to one of his employees with orders to dispose of it. The employee exploded the firecracker very close to the children and injured them seriously. The court held that the defendant had been negligent by leaving the firecracker unexploded, but this negligence was not the proximate cause of damage because the chain of events was broken by the subsequent negligence of the father or of his employee, without whose negligence nothing would have happened
Definition - “Joint Tortfeasors”
a wrongdoer; a party guilty of a tort
Joint Tortfeasors
-when two or more persons commit a tort acting together, the negligence is joint
-if sued, the wrongdoers may become joint ‘tortfeasors’ if the evidence shows that they acted together and that their negligent behaviour was the proximate cause of the resulting loss
-if the cause of the resulting damage or injury is considered to be indivisible, each of the wrongdoers is liable for all of the damage
-the plaintiff may choose whom to collect from, basing the decision on who is better able to pay
-if the loss can be divided, the court may hold each defendant liable only for that part of the damage
Definition - “Joint and several liability”
A legal term suggesting a partnership in which parties are bound to pay off all obligations regardless of the ability of some of the parties to pay all (or any) of the amount that would otherwise be apportioned to them
Joint and several liability
-prov. and terr. statutes provide for ‘joint and several liability’ among tortfeasors, which gives the plaintiff the option of selecting one tortfeasors (when there is more than one) to sue
-it may be advantageous for the plaintiff to take action against the most financially able defendant, or there may be some other reason for the plaintiff to choose a particular tortfeasor to sue
-the defendant found liable is responsible for the entire judgement regardless of how liability has been split among other tortfeasors
-if the plaintiff chooses only one among several tortfeasors to sue and obtains judgement, it is up to the defendant to seek contribution from the other tortfeasors sharing fault
-in practice, the tortfeasor named in the suit brings TP proceedings against the other tortfeasors
-the other tortfeasors are then also party to the action with rights to defend themselves.
-when and if the defendant is made liable to the plaintiff, the defendant’s rights are opened against the other tortfeasors
-the plaintiff contributes the perentage of damages for which they are found to be contributorily negligent
Solidary obligation (Quebec)
-the CCQ provides that, in the case of multiple tortfeasors in extra-contractual matters, any one defendant may be liable for the entire share of a judgement
-the ‘solidary obligation’ corresponds to the common law principle of joint and several liability
> > ## The obligation to make reparation for injury caused to another through the fault of two or more persons is solidary where the obligation is extra-contractual
-the victim can claim the whole indemnity from one particular defendant
-the defendants can resolve the distribution of damages amongst themselves; however, the law provides that the courts may determine the contribution owed by each of the parties at fault
> > ## A judgement rendered against a party must be capable of being executed. A judgement awarding damages must liquidate the damages; a judgement finding persons solidarily liable for injury must, if the evidence permits, determine the share of each of those persons in the award as between them only.
Vicarious liability
-legal liabilities incurred go beyond someone’s own activities, because people can be held responsible for the actions of others in a variety of ways when they conduct such actions on their behalf
-vicarious liability is a form of strict liability
-in certain circumstances, the law imposes responsibility on one person for the failure of another (with whom the person has a special relationship).
-vicarious liability assigns liability for injury or damages to a person caused by another while acting on their behalf
>employee acts for the employer in the context of employment, the employer is vicariously liable for the employee’s actions
