Important Cases Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Ginger beer, decomposing snail in drink
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Why important?
Before this, only parties in the contract could sue. Now it made negligence to the manufacture - duty of care
Mackay v Starbucks Corp 2017
Customer slips on ice - important because it said there is a STATUTORY duty owned by Starbucks. Starbucks deemed to be an occupier, even though it does not occupy the municipal sidewalk in question
Rankins Garage and Sales v JJ 2018
theft of car. JJ and friend CC break into rankins, steal car, cause accident. Important because rankin is sued for accident for leaving keys, but is found not liable due to FORESEEABILITY
Kamloops v Nielsen -
Building house on shit foundation. Statetute of limitations thing, determined when statute of limitations STARTS (when they found the issue not when the foundation was poured)
Grant vs Torstar 2009
Toronto Star publishes critical opinions about Peter Grant, this is about defamation lawsuit and RESPONSIBLE COMMUNICATION liability
Veinot v Kerr Addiosn Mines - 1972
One about a occupiers duty to trespassers has been breached.
- Gravity of probable injury
- likelihood of injury
- character of intrusion
- nature of the premises
- knowledge and duty of care of the occupier
- cost to prevent the harm
Rylands v Fletcher - 1868
This is about STRICT LIABILITY - strict liability was imposed on a n occupier who brought dangerous things onto the premises that later escaped and damaged adjoining property
Ryan v Youngs 1938
Heart attack driver. Didn’t have warning, defense of Invevitatble accident successful!!
Telfer v Wright
Inevitable Accident - liable since he was aware of prior condition and dizzy spells
Cooper v Hobart 2001
Registrar of mortgage brokers breached a duty of care to investors by failing to act sooner in suspending the lic ense of a mortgage broker who had violated mortgage brokers act. Failing to advise investors that the broker was under investigation.
Important because the court found there was insufficent PROXIMITY between the Registrar and investors to create a duty of care
Waldick v Malcolm 1991
about Volenti non fit injuria - disclaimer / volenti defense
Scott v Shepherd - Important!! 1773
Fire Cracker PROXIMATE CAUSE and EMERGENCY situation. Defendant who first lit it found liable even though others touched the firecracker.
King v Laperriere
army left explosives around that kids found and got hurt. They were found liable and neglicent for this injury
Beaudoin v TW hand Fireworks
chain of events firecracker one, proximate cause
