Unqualified Duty

Question 1

DUTY:

Answer 1

1) Legal Obligation owed by defendant to Plaintiff
2) Act in a Certain Manner (standard of care)
- If risk of injury is foreseeable, a duty then exists to use reasonable care to avoid injury to another.

Question 2

Factors to consider when determining whether a Duty exists:

Answer 2

• Foreseeabilty of harm to the P
• degree of certainty that p suffered injury
• closeness of connection between the d’s conduct and the injury to the P.

Question 3

UNQUALIFIED DUTY

Answer 3

(A GENERAL DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE FOR PERSON OR PROPERTY)
Usually, the Defendant acted carelessly.
- D carelessly acts to CAUSE a physical injury.
- Duty taken for granted (e.g. safely operating a car)
- Duty is UNQUALIFIED / GENERAL DUTY.

Question 4

Mussivand v. David (Genital Warts Case)

Answer 4

FORESEEABILITY:
“whether a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated that an injury was likely to result from the performance or non-performance of an act.”
- Spouse is a foreseeable partner
- duty is limited (point at which original sexual partner knows of exposure / symptoms.)

Question 5

MISFEASANCE

Answer 5

• Affirmative act creates unreasonable risk of harm
• general duty of care applies (ORPP)
• Mussivand Case

Question 6

NONFEASANCE

Answer 6

• Failure to intervene
• Basic Rule: no duty of care applies (NO DUTY OF CARE)
• e.g. Motorist sees baby enter path of Train, does nothing.
• Basic Rule subject to important exceptions, including special relationship

Question 7

Common law duty of Care:

Answer 7

• reasonable and prudent person exercises, or is accustomed to exercising under the same or similar circumstances.”
• Person is to exercise care necessary to avoid injury to others.