Precedent Setting Cases

Question 1

Donoghue vs Stevenson

Answer 1

Negligence, Who is my Neighbour, Tort Theory

Donoghue given a bottle of Ginger beer purchased by a friend. Donoghue found snail in bottle and fell ill. Sues the manufacturer, Stevenson.
First product liability case to sure under tort theory, as she could not sue under breach of contract as she did not purchase the drink herself.

Question 2

MacKay vs Starbucks

Answer 2

Statutory duty of care

Customer slips and falls due to ice on a city sidewalk just outside of Starbucks. Starbucks employees shovel and sand the city sidewalk that adjoins the walkway which is used to enter and exit the store.
Starbucks is occupier and therefor liable for injuries suffered.

Question 3

Rankin’s Garage vs JJ

Answer 3

Duty of Care, Foreseeability

JJ and CC are drinking at home, then leave the home with the intention of streaking valuables from cars. They found an unlocked vehicle with keys in ashtray at Rankin’s. They steal the car and get into a single vehicle accident with catastrophic injuries to JJ.
Supreme Court holds that there is no duty of care owed by Rankin’s to JJ. It is not foreseeable that injuries wil arise from the theft of the vehicle taken.

Question 4

Kamloops vs Nielsen

Answer 4

Statute of Limitations

Mr Hughes wanted to build a home on a hillside. When the home was inspected they determined that the foundation was not in accordance with the plans and was not able to check whether they are adequate to support the building being built because concrete was already poured.
Supreme Court ruled that the cause of action does not start on the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovers or ought to have discovered the injury or damage.

Question 5

Arland vs Taylor

Answer 5

Reasonable Person

Court measures the conduct of all other persons and find it to be the proper or improper in particular circumstances as they may exist from time to time.

Question 6

Veinot vs Kerr-Addison Mines

Answer 6

Trespasser

A snowmobile injured himself when he ran into a barrier while crossing onto the defendants land, with neither the right nor permission to be there.
Supreme Court set out a list of factors to consider in determining wether an occupier’s duty to trespassers has been breached.

Question 7

Ryland vs Fletcher

Answer 7

Strict Liability

Defendant made a reservoir on their land. Reservoir was filled and water escaped through old mine shaft onto Plaintiffs mine and flooded it.
From this it was concluded that any person who brings onto their land and keeps there for their own purpose, anything likely to cause mischief, must keep at their own peril.

Question 8

Polemis vs Furness Wilthy and Co

Answer 8

Foreseeability

A wooden plank is negligently dropped into the hold of a ship, it causes a spark to ignite gas vapour in the hold and results in the complete destruction of the ship.
Court held Furness liable even though the fall of the plank could not have been expected to destroy the ship.

Question 9

Overseas Tankship vs Morts Dock and Engineering (Wagamound)

Answer 9

Foreseeability

Fuel oil is spilled into the water and spreads a considerable distance from the ship (Wagamound). The plaintiff was using blow torches to repair the wharf. By a freak circumstance, cotton floating in the oil is ignited by the sparks and causes considerable damage to the property.
The council hold that it is not reasonably foreseeable that such circumstances would raise and therefore despite their negligence, the defendants are not liable.

Question 10

Ryan vs Young’s

Answer 10

Inevitable defence

Mr Young suffered a heart attack while driving his car. The car goes out of control and causes injury to third party. There was not prior medical history of heart conditions nor did he have any prior history or warning that this would happen.
Inevitable defence was successful.

Question 11

Telfer vs Wright

Answer 11

Inevitable defence

Mr Wright suffers a dizzy spell while driving. He stops his car for a short time then starts again. He drives off and blacks out completely. He loses control and collides with Telfer. 6 months earlier Mr Wright had the same symptoms.
He knew it was not safe to drive. A driver who is aware, must take necessary precautions. Inevitable defence was not successful.

Question 12

Palgraf vs Long Island Railroad

Answer 12

No Duty owed Defence

The defendants guard knocked a package of fireworks from the arm of a man being helped to board a 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 13

Waldick vs Malcolm

Answer 13

Voluntary Assumption

Waldick was seriously injured when he fell on the icy parking area of the Malcom’s farmhouse. The parking area and lane way had not been salted or sanded. Waldick was aware the lane way was slippery and acknowledged that its condition could be seen without difficulty.
Appeal court of Ontario 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. Therefor there was no liability against the defendant.

Question 14

Watt and Scott vs City of Montreal

Answer 14

Liability for things

A sewer pipe broke in Montreal and water escaped into cellars of multiple residences.
City was held liable because the pipe and water it contained were under the city’s custody.

Question 15

General Motors vs Kravitz

Answer 15

Liability of Manufacturer

The purchaser complained of defects which the car dealer did not remedy. The purchaser tendered a return of the car to the dealer and claimed the price of the car plus damages from both the car, the dealer and manufacturer.
The Supreme Court found the manufacturer was liable under a warranty against latent defects not only to the immediate purchaser (dealer) but also any subsequent purchaser.

Question 16

Houle vs Canadian National Bank

Answer 16

Abuse of right

The bank was a secured creditor of a company who’s shareholders were to the knowledge of the bank, negotiating the sale of their shares to a third party. The bank called back the loans, took possession of the company’s assets and sold them within 3 hours of taking possession. Instead of paying $1million for the shares the third party only paid $300,000
The Supreme Court held that although the bank was allowed to contractually act as it did, the actions were unreasonable under the circumstances and were judged to be an extra-contractual fault. The bank was held liable for the drop in value of the shares.

Question 17

St Lawrence Cement Inc vs Barrette

Answer 17

Tort of Nuisance

Damages were claimed because of the unreasonable dust, noise and smells of the cement company.
Appeals court found defendant liable for the damages caused due to the failing to maintain its equipment which caused the dust, noise and smells.

Question 18

Veranda Industries vs Beaver Lumber

Answer 18

Extra-contractual liability

Arises from the use of a ladder by a consumer that unfortunately collapsed causing injury.
Judge found Beaver lumber, along with manufacturer, liable even though Beaver Lumber did not modify nor had any ability to test the ladder for defects.

Question 19

Scott vs Shepherd

Answer 19

Proximate cause

The defendant threw a lighted firecracker into a crowded market where it fell on a stall. The occupier of the stall threw I away to avoid the danger and it fell on another stall where it was similarly thrown away. The firecracker eventually exploded causing injury to the plaintiff.
Court found that the defendant was the proximate cause of the loss.

Question 20

The King vs Laperriere

Answer 20

Proximate Cause

The Canadian Army had left some explosives on a site where children found them and processes to set them off, hurting themselves seriously in the process.
Supreme court held the Army (The King) liable since it was foreseeable that abandoning explosives would cause injury. There was negligence which set into motion as a string of events leading directly and without interruption to the injury.

Question 21

Beaudoin vs TW Hand Fireworks

Answer 21

Intervening cause

The defendant had unknowingly left a pyro stick unexplored and children found it. The father of one of the children discovered it and confiscated it. He handed it to an employee to dispose of it. The employee exploded the firecracker very close to the children, seriously injuring them.
The court held the defendant had been negligent by leaving the firecracker unexploded. This negligence was not the proximate cause of the damage. The chain of events had been broken by the subsequent negligent father.

Question 22

Lockhart vs Canadian Pacific Ray

Answer 22

Employee/Employer

An employee used his personal automobile while out on the company business even though he knew that this was not permitted by his employer. He subsequently had an accident that caused injury to a third party.
The court found that the employer was responsible for the actions of his employee.

Question 23

David Shipbuilding vs Cargill Grain

Answer 23

Interference

A marine tower collapsed. The claim by the owner Cargill against the contractor Cobra for the collapse of the marine tower was dismissed, since Cargill was a knowledgeable owner with the technical expertise.
The claim against the contractors foundation and David as a result of the partial collapse of the warehouse was dismissed because the contractor and the architect should not have to bear the consequences of faulty data provided by the experiences informed owner.

Question 24

Norwell vs Toronto

Answer 24

Municipality limitation

Slip and wall on a city sidewalk. The plaintiff has called the municipality and verbally told them of the incident. They were told to do nothing until the city representative contacted them.
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 25

Laurentide Motels vs Beauport

Answer 25

Municipality in Quebec

Case had to be heard on wether the civil liability of municipalities in firefighting was governed by public or private law.
The court found that 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. The city was also responsible for how its policies were implemented.

Question 26

United Motor Services vs Hutson et al

Answer 26

Tenants liability Subrogation

The tenants maintained a garage and attempted to clean oily deposits from the floor using gasoline. At the same time, additional cleaning substances were being heated by gas jets. The gas caught fire and caused serious damage.

Tenants were liable under the lease for repairs except that caused by the fire. 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.
Court also found that as the tenant does not pay a portion of the premium, subrogation against the tenant is permitted.

Question 27

Ross Southward Tire vs Pyrotech Products

Answer 27

Tenants Subrogation

Court held that the landlords fire insurer does not have subrogation rights against the tenant as the tenant pays part of the premium.

Question 28

Commonwealth Construction vs Imperial Oil

Answer 28

Subrogation

The court held that a subcontractor on a project who does not have an interest in the property damaged by fire will be liable for negligent acts even though the subcontractor is insured under the property policy covering the project

Question 29

MacPherson vs Buick Motor Co

Answer 29

Tort Theory

Part of the wheel of an automobile is defective and fell off causing injury.
Court found the manufacturer negligent even though the plaintiff purchased it from a retailer.

Question 30

Buckley vs Mott

Answer 30

Tort Theory

A person buys ice cream bar that contains powdered glass.
Court found the manufacturer negligent even though the plaintiff purchased the ice cream bar from a retail store.

Question 31

Alie et al vs Bertrand eat al

Answer 31

Occurrence Policy

Bertrand & Frere Construction supplied concrete for the construction of approx 140 homes between ‘86 - ‘88. Over time the concrete proved to have latent defects. In ‘92 it was determined that the foundations of all the homes would have to be replaced. The defect was traced to a fly ash, a component in the cement supplied by Lafarge, another defendant.
Court found Bertrand and Lafarge 20% & 80% liable respectively. Court of Appeals divided the significant defence costs between the seven policy periods and then equally appointed them between the primary and excess insurers during each period.

Question 32

Piercey eat al vs General Bakeries Ltd

Answer 32

Workers Compensation

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.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Workers Compensation Act of Newfoundland did not offend the equality provision of the charter.