Chapter 8 - Canadian Legal System Flashcards
Tort Law
This is where one party believes they were “wronged” by another party. This is insurable (subject to certain rules).
Tort Law is the framework of Liability Insurance.
A Tort is a wrong done to another in breach of a duty laid down by law.
A person who commits a wrong is referred to in law as a Tort-Feasor.
Two or more parties act together to cause injury or damage they are called Joint Tort-Feasors.
Tort-Feasor
A person who commits a wrong is referred to in law as a Tort-Feasor.
Intentional Torts
Liability Insurance does not deal with Intentional Torts.
Tort Comprises
- Legal Duty Owed
- Duty is Breached
- Damages were suffered as a proximate result of the defendant’s (tort-feasor) action
Onus of Proof
Like criminal law, one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, proof the act occurred by the defendant, or individual being accused, must be presented by the plaintiff, or accuser.
Onus of Proof - Defending
Under 3 circumstances, the burden rests with the defendant to show they are NOT guilty.
These circumstances are;
Statute Law, Statutes created by provincial and federal governments may impose strict liability. The provincial Highway Traffic Acts (concerning vehicular accidents involving pedestrians) normally assume the defendant is guilty unless proven innocent.
Res ipsa loquitur (“The thing speaks for itself”)- If a car parked next to a building being spray painted is covered in paint at the end of the day, the painters would have to prove they did not cause the damage.
Strict Liability. Certain activities have been determined by legislation or common law to create liability without regard to fault. These are normally activities in which harm to others would result if a mishap occurred. The person undertaking the activity is in a better position to understand the potential dangers, and it is reasonable to hold that person strictly accountable if someone is harmed. Examples of strict liability include keeping a dangerous or wild animal, storing excessive amounts of flammables or noxious substances in a populated area, or allowing the spread of an intentionally set fire.
Civil Law
Tort Law
Contract Law
ELEMENTS OF A TORT
Legal duty owed:
This element presupposes that one party has the right not to be harmed unreasonably and the other party has a duty to refrain from causing harm. This must be a non-contractual right, otherwise it would place the situation within the area of contract law. The defendant (the tort-feasor) owed the plaintiff (the injured party) a legal duty.
That duty is breached:
There must be a violation of the right to be free from harm or a breach of the duty not to harm.
Damages were suffered as a proximate result of the defendant’s (tort-feasor’s) action:
There must be some injury or damage caused to the person having the right to be free from harm. The proximate clause rule states there must be an uninterrupted unfolding of events, without the introduction of another primary cause from the initial act to its conclusion.17
Negligence
the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do.”18
A person is negligent only if the results of the act, or failure to act, could have reasonably been expected or foreseen — that is, if they knew or should have known that their conduct involved an unreasonable risk of harm. Lighting a fire outside on a windy day with a fire ban in place would constitute an expected unreasonable risk.20
Trespasser
No duty, but cannot set traps or intentionally cause harm to the trespasser
Visitor (applicable to Ontario)
licensee” and “invitee,” classifying them within the heading of “visitor.”
who enters the premises other than a trespasser.
Children:
In common law, the accepted legal position is that children lack the mature judgment needed to avoid risk and therefore need to be protected. Certain property, such as construction sites, attract children by their very nature. This is often referred to as an “attractive nuisance” or an “allurement.”
Persons Outside the Premises
Neighbours and passers-by can sustain injury or damage as a result of the condition of the occupier’s premises or the activities conducted inside. If property is used in a normal manner, occupiers are expected to maintain their buildings and land to avoid the escape of water, sewage, or other obnoxious matter to the detriment of neighbours. Occupiers who bring dangerous items onto their property and allow them to escape could be held strictly liable for damage or injury to others.
Domestic Animals
A large number of claims for injury or damage caused by domestic animals deal with dogs and, in particular, dog bites to innocent third parties. In 1981, an Ontario court ruling held there is no first free bite, and a dog’s owner is deemed legally liable from the first bite. In some municipalities, certain dog breeds have been deemed dangerous, and this has impacted the rating on some liability insurance policies. Zoos and other parties that keep wild animals shall be held strictly liable for injury or damage inflicted by that animal either on or off premises.
Children
The activities of children have been the source of numerous bodily injury and property damage claims. Children playing with matches have been responsible for losses to vacant properties, schools, and other buildings. Their careless use of firearms and motorized recreational vehicles has also resulted in permanent injury and death to playmates, friends, and others. In common law, children are responsible for the bodily injury and property damage they cause, unless it can be proven in the courts they were incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.
Children are responsible for their own torts. Parents are not generally required to pay for the torts of their children, unless it can be shown there was a:
- Failure to properly supervise and control their child’s activities.
- The injury or damage was caused by a dangerous thing or animal relinquished by the parent to the control of the child.
- The injury or damage was caused by a child acting on the authority of the parent.
- The injury or damage arose out of the duties of employment in the parent’s business.
Landlords
In common law, landlords are not responsible for ensuring that a building or land rented to others is fit for the purpose for which it is rented, unless they specifically warrant the fitness for such purpose or conceal any adverse conditions.
Exceptions to this are:
- When a landlord rents furnished premises to a tenant, it is presumed that the premises are fit for the purpose leased at the outset of the tenancy.
- If the landlord has contracted to maintain the premises and fails, after reasonable notice to do so, any injury or damage to property of the tenants is the responsibility of the landlord. In buildings having multiple tenancies, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the condition of the areas common to all tenants, including roof, stairways, parking areas, and lobbies.
Tenants to Landlord
A business which operates out of rented premises faces the potential for liability for loss or damage to the building. The tenant’s responsibility for such loss may be addressed in:
- Tort law: If a tenant is liable in tort for damage caused, the building owner is entitled to compensation. For example, when damage arises out of the tenant’s negligence, the tenant will be liable to the landlord for damages.
- Contract law: In most instances, the extent of a tenant’s liability for loss will be stated in a contract, such as a rental or lease agreement with the building owner.
Bailees
A bailee for hire is someone who has the temporary custody of the personal belonging of another for a purpose other than the sale of that item and who is compensated for caring, servicing, or fixing such property. For example, dry cleaners, garages, trucking companies, and delivery firms are all bailees. There is a potential for loss to the property in the bailee’s possession. Under tort law, bailees are required to exercise the same care over the property as would be exercised by others in the same business. They become responsible if that ordinary care is breached by their negligence. Under contract law, that duty of care is assumed under a separate contract.
Employers to Employees
In common law, employers are be held liable for the torts of their employees during their employment. This is known as “vicarious liability,” where one party has the indirect legal responsibility for the acts of another.
However, there is an exception when the employee acts outside the scope of their duties. In these situations, there is no liability when an employee delegates any or all of their work without the employer’s consent, when they take time off from their duties to attend to personal matters, or when they use the employer’s property for their own use and cause damage.
Independent Contractors
People who hire contractors to do work on their premises will generally be named in a legal action if the work being performed results in injury or damage to others. The status of the person doing the work determines the extent of the owner’s liability when injury or damage results from that work. Generally, occupiers of property are not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor if it can be shown that reasonable care was exercised in the selection of the independent contractor and it was reasonable that the work the independent contractor was engaged to do should have been undertaken. The exceptions are when the work was inherently dangerous; the independent contractor was using defective fixtures, machinery, or equipment supplied by the occupier; or the occupier controlled the manner in which the work was to be done.
Joint Liability
When there are two or more tort-feasors, disputes concerning the apportionment of damages could take a long time to resolve and may involve a separate legal action between the tort-feasors themselves. To ensure that the plaintiffs receive the damages awarded to them as soon as possible, the law provides that when equal liability is disputed, each tort-feasor will be held liable for the entire amount of the award. In order that the plaintiff does not receive twice the amount due, the tort-feasors’ insurers would be prompted to each pay 50% of the damages and settle their own concerns between themselves or, if required, through the courts.