Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Canada Tort Law > cases-flash-cards-tort-test1 > Flashcards

cases-flash-cards-tort-test1 Flashcards

Tort Nuisance and Negligence

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

right to sunlight in regards to solar panels

A

Prah v. Maretti 1982

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

public benefit’ defence from brick-maker is admonished by judge who states property owners must be compensated

A

Bamford v Turnley 1862

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Qualifies stringent adherence to the hand formula as impossible

A

McCarty v Pheasant Run Inc. 1987

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Hunter v Canary Warf

A

skyscraper blocked television signal 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

no right to air, plaintiff brought about his own misfortune

A

Bryant v Lefever 1879

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Rogers v Elliot

A

ringing church bell disturbs plaintiff 1888

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

public works must not interfere with the private rights of individuals unless protected by statute. Provincial legislature later passed stute protecting sewage plants.

A

Stephens v Village of Richmond Hill 1955

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

motorcyclist got bike stuck in the tracks, sued for nuisance

A

Ryan v Victoria 1999

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Describe Bender’s feminist critique of Tort

A

the feminine perspective of altruism, caring, holds individuals to a higher standard of care than the minimalist perspective of masculine rights based jurisprudence 1988

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

statutes may draw on nuisance law to learn about remedies; three step process to determine whether statute was breached

A

Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) 2013

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

new inference rule, res ipsa loqitor, established in landmark case

A

Byrne v Boddel 1863

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Prah v. Maretti

A

cannot block a house’s sunlight for solar power 1982

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Shuttelworth v. Vancouver General Hospital

A

people are afraid of disease from nearby hospital 1927

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Mansfeild v. Weetabix

A

trucker does not know he had low blood sugar and causes havoc on the roads 1998

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki

A

prostitution business is considered a nuisance 1952

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

One has no right to a view for purposes of delight

A

Aldred’s Case (16 19)16 19

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Negligence is famously defined in this case as; “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man… would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”

A

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company 1856

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Robberts v Ramsbottom

A

Driver had a stroke prior to collision drove with judgement impaired 1980

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

McHale v Watson

A

12 year old throws a chunk of metal that blinds another child in one eye 1966

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Canada Paper Company v Brown

A

Home-owner shuts down smelly paper mill 1922

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Injunction was imposed on paper mill but subsequent statutes were imposed to protect mills

A

KVP Co. Ltd. v McKie 1949

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

evidence is admitted to establish ‘proof of custom and usage’ that is indicative of reasonable precautions

A

Trimarco v Klein 1982

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

temporary insanity was first used a defence against negligence; test for insanity is if it had a causal relationship tothe act

A

Buckley v. Smith Transport Ltd. 1946

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

in a case where one employee slipped, the fact that no other employees slipped is used to indicate the risk was low

A

Latimer v AEC 1953

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

What does Prosser outline as the court and jury’s prerogatives in Tort Law?

A

1 sufficiency of evidence (J); 2 weight of evidence (J); 3 existence of a duty (C); 4 ‘general’ standard of conduct (J*); 5 ‘particular’ standard of conduct(J*)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Pornography store nearby is a nuisance

A

Laws v. Florinplace Ltd. 1981

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

TH Critelli v LincolN Trust and Savings Co

A

defendant builds building, causing snow to accumulate on neighbour 1978

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

A horse-riding plaintiff is not negligent if the horse he is riding was spurned out of fear or by a third party

A

Gibbons v Pepper 1695

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Coase’s criticism of Sturges v Bridgeman regarding the economic analysis of the judge

A

there are times when one plaintiff’s gain so outweighs the others loss that private contract should be encouraged rather than injunction in order to maximize allocation of resources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

a foreseeable risk, even a highly unlikely risk, must be prevented unless a reasonable has reason to not do so (such as prohibitive cost)

A

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v miller Steamship Co. (Wagon Mound No. 2) 1967

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

340909 Ontario Ltd. v. Huron Steel Products (Windsor) Ltd.

A

factory makes noise; court asks factory to limit noise to certain hours 1990

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Kenway v. Thomson

A

plaintiff inherits a lake, requests injunction on water-skiing 1980

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Sturges v. Bridgman

A

plaintiff builds new room and complains of noise from neighbours mortars in kitchen. The neighbour had partaken in these activities for 20 years 1879

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

we must not look on 1947 with 1952 spectacles’ – Lord Denning

A

Roe v Ministry of Natural Health 1954

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation)

A

Highway destroys truck stop - 1) substantial? 2) reasonable? 3) significant and permanent? 2013

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Bolton v Stone

A

a cricket ball causes injury to a plaintiff on the highway, very low probability of event is established 1951

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

landmark case explaining proximate cause when a firecracker (squib) was thrown around by many people in a room

A

Scott v Shepherd 1773

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Name the case where Lord Reid reconciles cases where foreseeability and extreme unlikelihood factor in negligence

A

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt 1979

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Anderson v Somberg

A

doctors, hospital, supplier and manufacturer are jointly held negligent for a tool breaking in surgery because they cannot distinguish who is individually negligent 1975

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Appleby v Erie Tobacco

A

a tobacco factory makes a noxious smell 1910

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Black v Canadian Copper Inc.

A

large mining interest pays damages, but injunction is avoided because of their size and importance in community 1917

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Buckley v. Smith Transport Ltd.

A

man with syphilis of the brain goes insane and crashes into street car 1946

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Trimarco v Klein

A

shattered shower glass causes injury, it was uncommon in the industry to have shattering glass in shower; case ordered for retrial because regulations passed after the event were used 1982

35
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

prostitution next door can be a nuisance

A

Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki 1952

35
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Differentiate Wagon Mound No1 and Wagon Mound No2

A

No1 emphasized a test for foreseeability (burning down the dock), No2 duty of care to eliminate risk (burning the three ships)

37
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

no need for damage to physical health required for nuisance

A

Flemming v Hislop 1886

38
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Which phase would Prosser prefer be removed from Tort lexicon?

A

Res Ipsa Loquitor

40
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

no right to sunlight; blocking it for business interest makes maliciousness irrelevant

A

Fountainbleu Hotel Corp v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five Inc. 1959

41
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

There are circumstances in which it is impossible for the individual to assert his individual rights as to inflict a substantial injury on the whole community’

A

Black v Canadian Copper Inc. 1917

42
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

mere autocratic assertions of what will be more conducive to the prosperity of the local community’ by paper mill cannot trump property rights

A

Canada Paper Company v Brown 1922

43
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

How should the designation of res ipsa loquitor change the burden of proof according to…?

A

Schiff- res ipsa loqitor does not change the burden of proof

44
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Latimer v AEC

A

employer does everything he can short of shutting down factory; plaintiff sues for injury when he slips 1953

45
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Landmark case where negligence was decided by the Hand Formula

A

The United States v Carol Towing Co. 1947

46
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Fleming v Hislop

A

smoke caused by brick-maker was a nuisance 1886

47
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

negligence is held by the standard of an ordinary man, not a man judging ‘to the best of his abilities’

A

Vaughn v Menlove 1837

49
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

four arguments for nuisance levied against a nearby hospital all fail

A

Shuttelworth v. Vancouver General Hospital 1927

51
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

sports can be a nuisance, escalation of sports activity

A

Kenway v. Thomson 1980

52
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Hollywood Silverfox Farm Ltd v. Emmet

A

shooting guns to disturb neighbours fox farm 1936

52
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Laws v. Florinplace Ltd.

A

pornography store in the neighbourhood is declared nuisance 1981

53
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Ybarra v Spanguard

A

several medical professional operate on an unconscious plaintiff, his neck is injured but he cannot identify who did it; res ipsa loqitor invoked 1944

54
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

A doctor acting within the standards of his profession will not generally be called into negligence because courts do not have the expertise to tell professionals they are not behaving appropriately in their fields

A

ter Neuzen v Korn 1995

56
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Fountainbleu Hotel Corp v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five Inc.

A

big hotel blocks sun of small hotel 1959

57
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

noise is a nuisance and maliciousness is a factor

A

Hollywood Silverfox Farm Ltd v. Emmet 1936

57
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Describe Posner’s critique of Bender’s feminist perspective on Tort

A

Bender’s critique just equates to strict liability and it is unclear how the net distribution will be affected

58
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

plaintiff uses res ipsa loquitor (RIL), but judge rules that RIL counter’s a non-suit claim by defendant, but does not change the burden of proof

A

Fontaine v British Columbia 1998

60
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

there are four narrow conditions when nuisance can avoid injunction and just pay damages

A

Shelfer v City of London Electrical Lighting Co. 1895

61
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

noise is intermittent which makes it worse; nuisance passes significant test – all factors analyzed for remedy except who got there first

A

340909 Ontario Ltd. v. Huron Steel Products (Windsor) Ltd. 1990

62
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

The T.J. Hooper

A

tugboats are not equipped with radio; no industry custom; radio would have prevented damage; tugboats avoid liability 1932

63
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Sites of hospital’s sick causing the arousal of empathy is not sufficient for nuisance

A

Shuttelworth v. Vancouver General Hospital 1927

63
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Res Ipsa Loquitor is used to sue doctor, hospital, suppliers and manufacturers

A

Anderson v Somberg 1975

65
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

The Mayor etc. Of Bradford v. Pickles

A

property owner diverts stream from town’s water supply 1895

66
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Sport is in public interest,playing sports near encroaching property must compensate for damages, not injunction

A

Miller v Jackson 1977

67
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

ter Neuzen v Korn

A

Dr. uses artificial insemination on plaintiff, gives her HIV, but acted within standards of industry 1995

69
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

protection from nuisance by statue is conditional; three different rationals – depending on ‘permissiveness’, ‘discretion’, and ‘inevitability’ of action

A

Tock v. St. Johns Metropolitan Area Board 1989

70
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt

A

reconciles Wagonmound No2 with Bolton v Stone 1979

71
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Miller v Jackson

A

owners of newly built houses want injunction on nearby cricket field 1977

73
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Smell is a nuisance, delay on injunction indicates protection of business interests

A

Appleby v Erie Tobacco 1910

74
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Denning – ‘in the absence of evidence to draw a distinction between [the contributing plaintiffs], they must both be held to blame’

A

Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Society Ltd 1953

75
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Bamford v Turnley

A

defendants burn brick 1862

76
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Byrne v Boddel

A

plaintiff’s barrel of flour drops out of a window causing injury, new evidence and inference rule establishes negligence 1863

77
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

The United States v Carol Towing Co.

A

Barge was left unattended, left moorings and collided with another ship 1947

79
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

in measuring due care one must balance risk against the measures necessary to eliminate risk’; emergency responders must reason accordingly

A

Watt v Hertfordhire County Council 1954

81
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

childhood limits the ability to foresee harm, be prudent, and appreciate risk; childhood is not an idiosyncrasy

A

McHale v Watson 1966

82
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

there is a good deal of advantage in being there first

A

TH Critelli v Lincoln Trust and Savings Co 1978

84
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

the risk must be balanced with the cost of precautions; does severity and likelihood of risk require an entire factory to be shut down?

A

Latimer v AEC 1953

85
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Tock v. St. Johns Metropolitan Area Board

A

plaintiff sues city (that was operating under statute) for flooding basement; depending on ‘permissiveness’, ‘discretion’, and ‘inevitability’ of action 1989

86
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

custom is relevant to negligence; if there is no customary precaution it may mitigate or nullify liability

A

The T.J. Hooper, mitigated (superseded?) by Carroll Towing 1947 ruling 1932

87
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

all plaintiff’s in control of an unconscious body may by inferred of negligence

A

Ybarra v Spanguard 1944

88
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Boomer v Atlantic Cement

A

large cement company avoids injunction due to its size and importance to community 1970

89
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

particular vulnerability of plaintiff is not a factor in nuisance

A

Rogers v Elliot 1888

90
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Society Ltd

A

Two drivers collide head on in the road, both die, both were found equally negligent 1953

92
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

impairment of judgement must be sudden and total to avoid negligence; defendant was negligent but not “morally to blame”

A

Robberts v Ramsbottom 1980

93
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

property rights cause injunction with no exception for business interest, how long the business operated or who was there first

A

Sturges v. Bridgman 1879

94
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Watt v Hertfordhire County Council

A

fireman gets injured while responding to an emergency call by an improperly secured jack 1954

95
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Criminal case where a 16 year old was provoked and stabbed provoker; it was questioned whether age reduces standard of reasonable care

A

R v Hill 1986

96
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

When children engage in adult activity that is normally insured they will be held to an adult’s standard of care

A

McEarlean v Sarel 1987

97
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

negligence is not just established on foreseeability but on probability; if extremely improbable, negligence cannot be established. Negligence is not based on fairness but on culpability

A

Bolton v Stone 1951

98
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Fontaine v British Columbia

A

res ipsa loquitor is used, and fails, to establish negligence in a car accident on a night of flooding. Shciff likes this decision on res ipsa loquitor 1998

99
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

landowner can divert water

A

The Mayor etc. Of Bradford v. Pickles 1895

100
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

Bryant v Lefever

A

adjoining houses and defendant makes his house much higher inconveniencing the other, blocking airflow 1879

101
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

McEarlean v Sarel

A

teenagers cause injury while motorbiking 1987

102
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

First ‘compensated injunction’, encroaching developer forced to pay damages for the injunction they imposed upon farmer

A

Spur Industries v Del E. Webb Development Co. 1972

103
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

disruption of TV is not nuisance

A

Hunter v Canary Warf 1997

104
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

There must be a cut-off point where children become treated as “reasonable persons”, and that they must approach this point incrementally

A

R v Hill 1986

105
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

standard of care should be measured as to what a reasonable person should do if they are unaware of their impaired condition

A

Mansfeild v. Weetabix 1998

106
Q

Name the case / Describe the facts

American landmark where injunction was ruled as unfair to the defendant, imposed an unjust burden

A

Boomer v Atlantic Cement 1970

Canada Tort Law (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions