Module 3: Tort Law Flashcards
distributive justice
distributing wealth; concerned with tort law. on the burden of proof must prove there is a balance of probabilities
retributive justice
criminal law; concerned with punishment and holding ppl accountable. burden of proof is now to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
strict liability
defendant is liable no matter what (irrespective of proof of negligence)
worker’s compensation
injured at the job; an exception of tort law being fault-based compensation
automobile insurance
example of exception of tort law being fault-based (no fault required - you will be compensated regardless)
vicarious liability
employers are legally responsible for the wrongful acts of their employees who are acting in the scope of their employment (not based on fault, but based on the RELATIONSHIP at fault)
tort of trespass
intentionally entering someone’s property w/o consent. in order to succeed, plaintiff needs to prove defendant was on property w/o consent - burden of proof is on plaintiff until they are successful (shifts to defendant); actionable PERSE (damages need not be proved)
tort of nuisance
any activity on an occupier’s property that unreasonably and substantially interferes w/ the neighbour’s rights to enjoyment of the neighbour’s own property (i.e. noise, ashes, unpleasant odours)
tort of assault, battery
battery: touching someone w/o consent
assault: THREATENING to touch someone w/o consent
tort of conversion
dealing with goods in a manner that is inconsistent with the owners rights (i.e. if is tole your laptop and sold it to your neighbour, crime is theft but tort is conversion)
tort of defamation
saying untrue statements which harm’s someone’s reputation. spoken = slander, written = libel
tort of conspiracy
entering into a contract for the purposes of doing something illegal; even if you’re not the one doing the illegal thing, you could be held liable if you entered into a contract who did the illegal thing (though there must be intent)
tort of fraud
the making of a false statement knowingly causing damages i.e. misrepresentation
tort of false imprisonment
unlawful detention or physical restraint or coercion by psychological means
tort of malicious prosecution
prosecuting someone without a belief in their guilt
inducing breach of contract (interference with contractual relations)
business-related tort paying someone to breach a contract
intentional interference w/ economic relations
business-related tort paying someone not to do business with someone else
injurious falsehood / malicious falsehood
business-related tort like defamation, but for business or products. i.e. making untrue statements intentionally about the iphone
invasion of privacy
business-related tort
contributory negligence
defence argues plaintiff was negligent
voluntary assumption of risk
waivers, limitation clauses; argument that plaintiff voluntarily consented to risk (if this is proved, plaintiff is completely out of luck so it’s rare)
product liability
manufacturer of products owes a duty of care to the consumers of those products
occupier’s liability
owners of land owe a duty of care to guests (even trespassers)
alcohol-related liability
people who serve alcohol (commercial hosts) have standard of care to those who consume it. includes social hosts (people hosting a party); business-related holiday parties must be extra careful
professional liability
experts owe a duty of care to people who rely on their advice (RELIANCE is key); misrepresentation that is fraudulent or negligent can be held liable in tort law. experts negligent for what they didnt do
primary liability
liability that arises due to one’s own personal wrongdoing
tort-feasor
a person who commits a tort
joint tort-feasors
two or more persons whom a court has held to be jointly responsible for the plaintiff’s loss or injuries
pecuniary damages
compensation for out of pocket expenses, loss of future income, and cost of future care (tangible)
non-pecuniary damages
compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of life expectancy. also called general damages (intangible)
aggravated damages
compensation for intangible injuries such as distress and humiliation caused by the defendant’s reprehensible (and plaintiff’s unlawful) conduct i.e. when store defective unlawfully restrains a customer, they have committed the tort of false imprisonment. if they also yelled insults humiliating the person, then court can award aggravated damages
prima facie
at first sight or on first appearances
proximity
parties are in such a close and direct relationship that it would be “just and fair having regard to that relationship to impose a duty of care in law”
thin skull rule
the principle that a defendant is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff’s injury even where a prior vulnerability makes the harm more serious that it otherwise might be
pure economic loss
financial loss that results from a negligent act where there has been no accompanying property or personal injury damage to the person claiming the loss
volenti non fit injuria
voluntary assumption of risk
contractual entrant
any person who has paid (contracted) for the right to enter the premises
invitee
any person who comes onto the property to provide the occupier with a benefit
licensee
any person whose presence is not a benefit to the occupier but to which the occupier has no objection
legal authority
the authority by law to detain under section 494 of the Criminal Code
passing off
presenting another’s goods or services as one’s own
justification
a defence to defamation based on the defamatory statement being substantially true
qualified privilege
a defence to defamation based on the defamatory statement being relevant, without malice, and communicated only to a party who has a legitimate interest in receiving it i.e reference letter
fair comment
a defence to defamation that is established when the plaintiff cannot show malice and the defendant can show that the comment concerned a matter of public interest, was factually based, and expressed a view that could honestly be held by anyone i.e. a restaurant review
responsible communication on matters of public interest
defence that applies where some facts are incorrectly reported but (1) the publication is on a matter of “public interest” and (2) the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation
absolute privilege
a defence to defamation in relation to parliamentary or judicial proceedings
