Legal Cases

Question 1

Arland v. Taylor

Answer 1

The Ontario Court of Appeal provided one of the most frequently cited descriptions of the term in Arland v. Taylor. Here, the reasonable person is described as a mythical creature of the law whose conduct is the standard by which the Courts measure the conduct of all other persons and find it to be proper or improper in particular circumstances as they may exist from time to time.

Question 2

General Motors Products of Canada v. Kravitz

Answer 2

Joint liability

CCQ Articles 1468, 1469, and 1473 cover liability for safety defects in products. The principle is roughly in line with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in General Motors Products of Canada v. Kravitz, [1979] 1 SCR 790. In this case, the court held that the dealer and the manufacturer of a new car were jointly and severally liable for damages and for the price of the car.

Question 3

Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. v. Cargill Grain Co. Ltd. et al.

Answer 3

When the principal gives instructions on how a job is to be done, the principal will be liable for the consequences. In Davie Shipbuilding, arising from Quebec courts, the engineer’s and contractor’s responsibilities were examined when a marine tower collapsed. This case explains the interference exception to general contractors assuming liability for their subcontractors’ work.

Question 4

Scott v. Shepherd

Answer 4

British case used as a prime example of proximate 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, which is still referred to today.

Question 5

Beaudoin v. T.W. Hand Fireworks

Answer 5

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, [1961] CS 709. 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. However, 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 the damage, the chain of events having been broken by the subsequent negligence of the father or of his employee; without whose negligence nothing would have happened.

Question 6

Norwell v. Toronto

Answer 6

If the municipality is not notified in the prescribed manner and within the time limit, all right of action is lost. In Norwell v. Toronto, the court ruled that although the person had advised the municipality orally within the prescribed time, and had been told to do nothing until contacted by the municipality, the municipality was not prevented from using the limitation period as a defence.

Question 7

Donoghue v. Stevenson

Answer 7

This was the first product liability case to sue under tort theory. The House of Lords determined that Stevenson had a duty of care to the consumer to provide goods that were not contaminated or faulty. It also reaffirmed that negligence is a tort and that the manufacturer not only owes a duty to whom it sold the product but also to whoever may be injured because of the use of the product—the actual consumer now has a right to sue.

Question 8

MacKay v. Starbucks Corporation

Answer 8

A customer slips and falls due to ice on a city sidewalk just outside of Starbucks. Starbucks patrons must use this city sidewalk as a “passage or corridor” in order to enter and exit the store through the side entrance. At trial, it is found that Starbucks is indeed an occupier and therefore liable for the injury suffered.

Question 9

Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J.

Answer 9

J.J. and his friend steal a car from Rankin’s Garage. An accident occurrs with J.J. suffering catastrophic injury. The Supreme Court holds that there is no duty of care owed by Rankin to J.J. in these circumstances. It is not reasonably foreseeable that injuries will arise from the theft of the vehicle taken from Mr. Rankin’s establishment.

Question 10

Kamloops (City of) v. Nielsen

Answer 10

The Supreme Court of Canada rules that a cause of action for negligence does not start on the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovers or ought to have discovered the injury or damage. In this case, the statute runs when the plumber discovers the foundation issue while he is there fixing a broken pipe, which is well after the date when the foundation was poured and the damage most likely first appeared.

Question 11

Grant v. Torstar Corp

Answer 11

This case about the Toronto Star newspaper concerns the proposed development of a golf course on land owned by Peter Grant, the plaintiff. A number of local residents are critical of Grant, and the newspaper publishes articles stating these perceptions. The decision of the court is based on the defence of responsible communication, which must apply to the defence of a defamation lawsuit.

Question 12

Veinot v. Kerr-Addison Mines Ltd

Answer 12

Established that occupier must treat the trespasser with common humanity. Case set out a list of factors to determine whether an occupier’s duty to trespassers had been breached:
* Gravity of the probable injury
* Likelihood of the probable injury
* Character of the intrusion or trespass
* Nature of the premises trespassed on
* Knowledge the occupier had or ought to have had of the likelihood of a trespasser’s presence
* Cost to the occupier of preventing the harm

Question 13

Rylands v. Fletcher

Answer 13

The doctrine of strict liability permits a tort action to succeed against an occupier without having to prove negligence for unintended harm. In Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, strict liability was imposed on an occupier who brought dangerous things onto the premises that later escaped and damaged adjoining property.

Question 14

Right of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool

Answer 14

Set out the rules to follow in order to prove a negligence claim based on the breach of a statute:
* The statute must have been breached.
* The conduct that was a breach of the statute must also have caused the damage for which compensation is sought.
* The statute must have been intended to prevent the damage that occurred.
* The person making the claim must be among the group the statute was intended to protect.

Question 15

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co

Answer 15

In this case, fuel oil is spilled into the water and spreads a considerable distance from the ship, the Wagon Mound, from which it has been negligently emitted. Expert opinion is that it is highly unlikely that fuel oil floating in the water can be ignited; consequently, the plaintiffs (using blow torches) continue repair work on a wharf despite the presence of fuel oil in the water below. By a freak circumstance, cotton waste floating in the oil is ignited by the sparks, causing considerable damage to property. The Privy Council holds that it is not reasonably foreseeable that such circumstances would arise and, therefore, despite their negligence, the defendants are not liable.

Question 16

Bux v. Slough Metals Ltd

Answer 16

Defendants must prove there was no negligent conduct, even when there has been compliance with applicable statutes. For example, an employer who is required by statute to provide employees with safety goggles and does so, but knows that the employees rarely use them, will likely be found negligent if an employee suffers an eye injury.

Question 17

Ryan v. Youngs

Answer 17

Inevitable accident
Mr. Youngs suffers a heart attack while driving his car. The car goes out of control and causes injury to a third party, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Youngs’s medical history reveals he does not have a heart condition of any kind nor did he have any warning that this would happen. Mr. Youngs succeeds in defending his position, citing an inevitable accident.

Question 18

Telfer v. Wright

Answer 18

Inevitable accident
Mr. Wright suffers a dizzy spell while driving. He stops his car for a short while and then starts it again. As he drives off, he blacks out completely. He loses control of his car and collides with Mr. Telfer. Six months earlier, Mr. Wright had suffered the same symptoms. He knew or should have known that it was not safe to drive. A driver who is aware he suffers from a disability must take necessary precautions to avoid causing an accident. Under the circumstances, Mr. Wright is judged to be negligent.

Question 19

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Answer 19

No duty owed
The defendant’s guard knocked a package of fireworks from the arm of a man being helped to board a departing train. The fireworks exploded, knocking over a scale, which injured the plaintiff. She was denied recovery on the grounds that she was beyond the range of foreseeable danger.

Question 20

Waldick v. Malcolm

Answer 20

Volenti non fit injuria
The defence of volenti will not be successful unless it passes a two-step test—(1) proving the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk and (2) proving the plaintiff waived his or her legal right to make a claim. This case held that a person must not only know about the risk and physically assume it but also must waive the rights of any legal claim in the event of injury.

Question 21

Watt and Scott v. City of Montreal

Answer 21

Just as the Civil Code of Quebec holds that the fault of a child is the fault of the parent, it also holds that a person is accountable for damage caused by his or her things, animals, or buildings. For example, when a sewer pipe broke in Montreal and water escaped from it into the cellars of some residences, the city was held liable under an earlier version of what is now CCQ Article 1465, because the pipe and the water it contained were things under the city’s custody.

Question 22

Véranda Industries Inc. v. Beaver Lumber

Answer 22

Consumer Protection Act
Both the manufacturer and the retailer of a folding ladder were held liable to a consumer because the screws used to lock the ladder broke after one or two uses. This liability was imposed even though the retailer (Beaver Lumber) had never tested and was in no position to check the ladders it sold.

Question 23

Houle v. Canadian National Bank

Answer 23

Abuse of Right
Bank was allowed contractually to act as they did but its actions were still found unreasonable, and they were held liable for the drop in value of the shares.

Question 24

St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v. Barrette

Answer 24

Obligations of Neighbours
Damages were claimed because of the unreasonable dust, noise, and smells of the cement company. The concept of liability without fault was affirmed to align with the common law tort of nuisance.

Question 25

The King v. Laperrière

Answer 25

The issue of proximate cause was upheld in case law in The King v. Laperrière, [1946] SCR 415, 1946 CanLII 38 (SCC). In this case, the Canadian Army had left some explosives on a site where children found them and proceeded to set them off, hurting themselves seriously in the process. The Supreme Court held that the Army (The King in this instance) 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.

Question 26

Lockhart v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.

Answer 26

Master and Servant/Employer and Employee
An employee used his personal automobile while out on company business even though he knew that this was not permitted by his employer. When he had an accident that caused injury to a third party, the court decided that the employer was responsible for the actions of his employee.

Question 27

Laurentide Motels Ltd. v. Beauport (City)

Answer 27

In Quebec, a municipality, be it a town, a city, or a smaller municipal corporation, is liable like any individual. In this case, the city was liable for the additional damage caused by the fire, as it was due to its fault in maintaining its water and firefighting systems and to the fault of its employees in carrying out their duties.

Question 28

United Motors Service, Inc. v. Hutson et al

Answer 28

Tenants Liability
The tenants were liable under the lease for repairs of all damage except that caused by fire, but since they were obviously negligent, and the lease did not specifically relieve them from repairing when fire was caused by their negligence, the Supreme Court held that the tenants were responsible for the damage.

Question 29

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co

Answer 29

Established the tort theory of products liability. Part of the wheel of an automobile was defective, Although there was no privity of contract between MacPherson and the manufacturer, the court held that the automobile was inherently dangerous. If it was negligently made, this fact justified an exception to the privity rule.

Question 30

Buckley v. Mott

Answer 30

Canadian product liability case. Plaintiff was injured by powdered glass found in a chocolate ice cream bar. The manufacturer claimed that since there was no contract between itself and the plaintiff, as the bar was purchased from a retailer, it owed no duty to the plaintiff. However, the court ruled that there was a duty not to sell a dangerous food product and imposed liability on the manufacturer.

Question 31

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works

Answer 31

Sistership
The manufacturer of cranes fails to advise a former purchaser that a defect exists in a certain type of crane. When the plaintiff hears of a similar crane collapsing, it withdraws its crane from service to make repairs. The plaintiff then sues the manufacturer for loss of profits and the cost of repairs. The Supreme Court of Canada finds the manufacturer responsible for the loss of profits because of its prior knowledge of the defect and its failure to warn the plaintiff.

Question 32

Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co.

Answer 32

If the product is inherently dangerous, or contains a possible concealed trap, the manufacturer, or one who provides, supplies, or sells these products, must provide adequate warning on the article. In this case, the warning on a highly flammable product was deemed inadequate as it did not warn of the necessity of extinguishing all nearby flames.

Question 33

Ruegger v. Shell Oil Company of Canada Ltd. and Farrow

Answer 33

Inadequate Warning
The manufacturer of weed killer is found liable because the warning on the label, that the weed killer be kept away from flowers, is considered inadequate. The spray, on a day with no wind, damages the plaintiff’s tomatoes that are located one quarter of a mile away.

Question 34

Smith v. Inglis Ltd.

Answer 34

The contributory negligence defence can be used when the plaintiff has misused the product. In this case, the plaintiff removes the third prong of an electrical plug of a recently purchased appliance, removing the ground and making it defective. In this particular case, the plaintiff is an experienced builder who knows full well the dangers involved in using ungrounded appliances.

Question 35

Rae v. T. Eaton Co. (Maritimes) Ltd.

Answer 35

Abnormal Use
After a can of artificial snow is banged on concrete, it explodes and injures a child’s eye. The retailer isn’t found liable because the use is considered abnormal.

Question 36

Yachetti v. John Duff & Sons

Answer 36

Abnormal Use
The plaintiff contracts trichinosis after eating raw pork. The court dismisses the case because it is well known that pork must be cooked thoroughly before being eaten.

Question 37

Alie et al. v. Bertrand et al.

Answer 37

Established a trend to trigger coverage on successive policies even though the damages stemmed from one occurrence. Company supplied defective contrete over a period of several years and was found liable, defence costs were divided between the different policy periods.

Question 38

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Answer 38

Trademark Infringement
Details Samsung’s trademark infringement on Apple’s design and utility patents, covering such aspects of mobile design as rounded corners, the rim on the front face of the iPhone, and the now iconic app grid layout of the iOS home screen.

Question 39

Piercey et al. v. General Bakeries Ltd.

Answer 39

Taking away the right to sue has been challenged in the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Supreme Court of Canada held that the Workers’ Compensation Act of Newfoundland did not offend the equality provision of the Charter. The plaintiff was the widow of a man who died as a result of a work-related accident. The employer contended that the widow was only entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff claimed that sections of the Act that took away her right to sue contravened the Charter.