THIS EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF 3 PAGESPLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE A

COMPLETE PAPER

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAFACULTY OF LAW

FINAL EXAMINATIONSPRING 2014

LAW 140TORTS

Section 4Professor Harris

TOTAL MARKS: 100

TIME ALLOWED: 2.5 HOURS and 5 minutesreading time

NOTE: 1. The examination is closed book, butstudents may bring to the exam one letter-sized piece ofpaper with notes.

2. THIS EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF 3QUESTIONS. PLEASE ANSWER ALL 3QUESTIONS.

LAW 140, Section 4Page 2/3

Question 1 (50 Marks)

In a small town in northern British Columbia, there were problems with teens beingbored and getting into trouble. The town council decided to set up a teen drop-in centreon the main downtown street just beside a medium sized apartment building. The councilfilled the centre with pooi tables and video game systems. A large sign at the entrance tothe centre said “No Rough Play, No Yelling and No Running”.

The centre opened in the fall of 2013, and was very popular with teens. The centre wasstaffed by volunteers from the community, and on January 14, 2014, gas station ownerTim Jones was on staff at the centre. Some of the teens were yelling a lot, and Jones toldthem to please be quiet. Residents from the apartment building next door had beencomplaining about yelling from the centre, and there was a note from the council tellingstaff to keep all noise to a minimum. However, the teens kept loudly cheering the videogame players, and Jones tried to think if a way to solve the problem. There were piecesof a broken fence outside the centre, and Jones thought they might provide someinsulation to lessen the noise. Jones brought the pieces of fence inside the centre andnailed them against a wall near the video game systems.

The next day, Sarah Seeker, an architect, was on staff at the centre. Some teens,including Barry Young, were playing a game of tag inside the centre. As he was trying toavoid being tagged, Young slammed into the wall which had the pieces of fence on it.One of those pieces fell off the wall and landed on Young’s left leg. Young’s leg wastrapped underneath, and he called for help. Seeker was not sure what to do and thed tothink of a plan. A couple of minutes later, another teen at the centre pulled as hard as hecould on Young’s left leg and was able to free it from under the piece of fence.

Young was transported immediately to the hospital. There was so much damage toYoung’s left leg from the incident at the centre that he now walks with a limp. Dr.Draven who treated Young was of the view that the damage to the leg was a result of howlong the fence was on the Young’s leg. Dr. Draven thought that the yanking on the legmay have been a factor in the damage.

Please outline any reasonable potential tort actions that Young, and any otherplaintiffs, have against any potential defendants. Please also comment on theirlikelihood of success. Please also mention any reasonable defences that defendantsmay have to these actions, and their likelihood of success. Please also brieflyaddress the types and areas of damages that Young might receive.

A

LAW 140, Section 4Page 3/3

Question 2 (30 Marks)

Bill Boring and Fred Flashy are R.C.M.P. officers who have worked at the sameVancouver detachment for five years. Flashy has risen up the ranks much more quicklythan Boring. Boring did not like Flashy because Flashy liked to “bend the rules”,including threatening accused persons with violence if they did not confess.

There was a problem with seized drugs going missing from the evidence storage area ofthe detachment. Boring saw Flashy spending a lot of time in the storage area although itseemed that Flashy had no need to be there. One day a large bag of marijuana wentmissing from the storage area, and Boring saw Flashy going home in a large van at theend of their shift. Boring followed Flashy, and saw Flashy drive the van into Flashy’shome garage. Boring got out of his car and went to a window of the garage, but couldnot see anything. Boring then decided to go to a restaurant to eat. While eating, Boringsaw Flashy enter the restaurant and sit at a table with a person who looked like a drugaddict. Boring saw Flashy and this person exchange something, and Boring thought thatFlashy was doing a drug transaction with the marijuana from the detachment. Boringimmediately took Flashy back to the detachment.

At the detachment, Flashy waited in an interview room while Boring made someinquiries. It was discovered that Flashy was actually interviewing a witness at therestaurant, and the witness was providing Flashy with notes of his recollections. Boringdecided to have Flashy wait in the interview room for 15 minutes so he would mayberealize how the accused people felt who Flashy liked to threaten. After about 15 minutes,Boring went to tell Flashy that he could leave, but Flashy had left the detachment.

Please outline any potential tort actions that Flashy has against Boring. Please alsocomment on their likelihood of success. Please also mention any reasonabledefences that Boring may have to these actions, and their likelihood of success.Please do not address the issue of damages in this question.

Question 3 (20 Marks)

Comment on the accuracy of the following statement:

In the law of negligence, including assessment of damages, the subjective intentor knowledge of defendants is not a relevant matter.

END OF EXAMINATION

SYLLABUS: TERM 1 (Approximate Guide Only)

Classes 1 / 2 Overview of Tort Case (5-8) Intentional Torts (45-54, not theRanson_case)

Classes 3 / 4 Battery (58-65) Assault

Non-Marine Underwriters, Krawczyk v. Peter Kiewit Sons

Lloyd’s ofLondon v. 2009 BCSC 164 (website)

Scalera, [2000] 1 S.C.R.551, paras. 1-45

(website)Classes 5 / 6 False Imprisonment (70-79) Ward v. City of Vancouver

2007 BCSC 3 (paras. 1-7 1)(website)

Classes 7 I 8 Malicious Prosecution (79- Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC

86) 51 (website)

Classes 9 / 10 Invasion of Privacy (98- Watts v. Klaemt 2007 BCSC 662,109) paras. 1-59

Classes 11 / 12 Trespass to Land (155-167) Consent (177-187)Excerpt from Norberg v. Wynrib (to

be c-mailed)

Classes 13 / 14 Class Exercise I Class Exercise I

Classes 15 / 16 Consent (197-2 10) Self-Defence (217-221)Pollard v. Simon2009 BCPC 190

(website)

Classes 17 / 18 Defamation (1001-1018) Defamation (1022-1035)

Classes 19 / 20 Defamation (1035-1057) Crookes v. Newton2011 SCC 47 at paras. 1-45

(website)

Classes 21 / 22 The Burden of Proof Class Exercise IIF.H. v. McDougall, 2008SCC 53 (not paras. 50-73)

(website)

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Th Medlana.Notjd Questions 30(b) Aseipg Damages for Non-Pecuniary Losses 31Review Pmbl 31

6. Aggravated Das 32Notes and Questions 32

7. PunItive Damage 33Notes and Questions 34B(P.)iB.(W.) 34Note. andQuestiona 36(a) The Principles in W en v. Pilot 37Notes and Question 38

8. Dlsgorgement gas 40Notes and ons 40Pc It Engineering Co. LIS v. Pound.rNo Questions 41

view Pmblem 43

CHAFFER 3 INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON 45I. Introduction 452. Basic Principles of LiabilIty 45

(a) Volition 45Smithy. Stand 46Notes and Questions 46(b)Tntent 46

(I) Imputed (Consmictlve) Intent 47(II) Transferred Intent 47

Notes and Question 473. Related Issuest Motive, Mistake and Accident 48

(a) Motive 48Notes 49

(I) Duress 49GUbe,t p. Stone 49Notes and Questions 49(ii) Provocation 50Miska v. Sivec 50Notes and Questions 51

(b) Mistake 53Hodgkinron v. Martin 53

:.::::::(c) Accident 55Review Problems 5(d) Liabiht i1;ose

a1Notes and Questions 56

4. Battery 58Berielv. Yim 58Notes and Questions 61(a) The Burden of Proof in Sesual Abuse Cases 64Notes and Questions 64

CABLE OF CONTEN rs xl

5. Assault • 65

ptes ,nd Que%tivnsHoict; itaker 66

Police v Greaves 67

Notes and 68

blems 70

6. False ImprisonmentBird v Jones 70

Notes and Questions 72

(u) False Antst 73

Campbell v. S.S. Kresge C, 74

Notes and Questions 75

(b) Consensual Restraint 77

Herd v. Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke C’o. Ltd 77

Notes and Questions 79

‘7. MalicIous Prosecution 79

Nelles v. Ontario 80

Notes and Questions 82

ia)- Th.Toi* of /‘,huse of PineeseReview Problem 87

SeL,jntentlOnal Infliction of Nervous Shock 8

on v. Downion 8

Notes estions 89

RadovskLs v. a 90

Samms v. Eccie., 9)

Notes and Questions 93

(a) The Broadening of Lie 94

Notes and Questions 95

Intentional Tort

(a) introduction 98

Notes and Questions 98

(b) A Common Law Tort Action for the Invasion of

Privacy? 99

Moiherwell p. Moihenvell 99

Notes and Questions 101

(c) Subsequent Common Law Developments 101

Notes and Questions 101

(d) The Statutory Protection of Privacy 106

Hollinsworth y. BC1V 106

No and Questions 108

Review m 10

(e) BreacJiof - ‘ice 10

Notes and Questions Ill

Revew Problem Ill

10. DIscrimination 112

Bhaduuria v. Boa overnors of Seneca oi e

AppliedQuesdons........ ::::::: ::::::::::::: :::::.::::::::::: 112

th TABLBOPCONTENTS)

CHAPTER 4 INTEJ4TIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CHATTELS1. In on2evdoPfZeActIo<17

1\ouldes v. WilloughbyandQuestions 123

4. Con on 124(a) C] Principles 124MacKenzs , Scotia Lumber Co 124Notes and Qu dons 126Review Problem 133(b) Conversion of ues and Other Un al Chattels 134373409 Alberta LtS ( eiver iiI) p, Ba ofMontreuJ 134Notes and Questions 138(a) Remedies for Conversio 141Airken . Gardiner 141Notes and Questions 143

5. Detlnue 146Gerw. & Finance Facill LkL ‘. Cooks (Romford)LS 146Aitken v. Gardln 148NotesandQu ons 149

6. Recaptlon RaplevIm 150(a) R n 151(b) levin 151N and Questions 52

eview Problems 1 3CHAPTERS INTENTIONAL iNTERFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY 155

1. Trespauto Land 155Entick w. Carringion 155Turnerv. Thorne 155Notes and Questions 157Review Problems 159Harrison v. Carxwell 160Ntes and Questions 163Trespass and Nuisance

Revelsioke Bldg. MaterIals Lid 167Notes a lions 169

3. Trespas, to Airs nd Subsoil 171(a) Trespass to Airspace IllBernstein v. Skyvieivs & Ge 171

II

TABLE OP CONTENTS xli

CHAPTER 6 ThE DEFENCE OF CONSENT 1771. Introduction to the Defences 1772. General Principles of Consent 177

(a) Introduction 177Notes and Questions 178(b) Implied Consent 178Wright v. Mclean 178Notes and Questions 180(c) Exceeding Consent 180Agurv.Canning ISONoiesandQuestlons 181Review Problems 184(d) Competency to Consent 184

3. Factors Vitiating Consent: Fraud, Mistake, Duress, andPubllcPol1c’ 184(a) Introduction 184(b) Fraud (Deceit) 185Notes and Questions 185(c) Mistake 187

otee and Questions 187(d) on) 118Lauerv.Bradd 188Nwes and Questions 191

Review.Pftb1ms 1934. tra1t.Cr’ er l.ral Ails 194

NetesmadQussni 1955. Consent to Treatment, Counseling and Care 197

(a) General Principles of Consent 197Notes and Questions 197(b) Exceptions to the General Principles of Consent 199Marshall v. Curry 199Maletie v. Shuisnan 201Notes and Questions 203(c) The Burden of Proof and Consent Forms 205Notes and Questions 205(d) Competency to Consent 206

(I) Minors 206C.y.Wren 206

....jotes and Questions 208

(e) Substitute Consent 213Notes and Questlo 213

1aiEE:EE:EEZ

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPFER 7 DEFENCES RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAND PROPERTY 217I. Introduction 2172. Self-Defence 217

Wuckettp. Colder 217Notes and Questions 219

k DefenceotThlrdPartlesGambrieil ‘. Caparelli

Nq,!es and Questions 2234.

Notes anJ’Q,estjons 2275. Defence of Itbql Property 230

MacDonald v. Fibs 230Notes and QuesUo 232Bird v. Holbrook 233Notes and Questions 234

6. Defence and Racaption of C1i 235Notes and Questions 235Review Problem 236

7. Public and Private N ty 236(a) Public Necessl 236Surocco v. Geary 237Notes and Qu t’ 238(b) Privat ecessity 240Vincent Lake Eaf. Tpt Co 240Not dQuestlons 243

8. A rtlonment of Fault In Intentional Torts 244otes and Questions

Review Problems 24lE DEFENCE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY ‘91.” utroductlon 49

and Questions 2502. The Charter ofRight, and Freedoms 251

(a) Liab UnderSection24(1) 252(b) The Tm t of Section 52 on the Defence of gal

Authority 253Notes and Questio 253

3. AuthorIty and Privile to Arrest WI ut a Warrant 254(a) Introduction 254Notes and Questions 255(b) A Peace Officer’s Power t without a Warrant 256Notes and Questions 257(c) PriviIegeorJu,tir don tinder the inal Code 257Notes and QuestIo 259(d) A Private C n’s Authority and Privilege Arrest

without arrant 259Notes an estions 261

4. RIgh nd Obligations In the Arrest Process 262(a) earoits for the Arrest 62

echlin i’ Waugli and Hamilton 2

CHAPTERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS zv

CHAPTER 26 BUS1NESS TORTS 95w’introduction 57

97 2. I(Fraudv Peek 958

Not Questions 9613. PassIng fl 965

Ciba.GeIg anada Ltd. v. Apotex inc 9669 NotesandQu its 9709 4. IntimidatIon 9729 Central Can. Potash . ovL ofSask 973

Notes and Questions 9753 5. Conspiracy 9763 Posiuns p. Tomnso Stock Exe 977

Notes and Questions 9786. Interference with Co dual Rela 982

PosIuns v. Toronto k Exchange 983Notes and Quest 987

7. IntentIonal I rference with Economic Reldi byUnlawiW esi 991Reach Inc. v Phannaceutical Manufacturers Ass,,.C 992

and Questionsiew Problem I

CHAFFER 27 DEFAMATION 10011. Inboduction 1001

Notes and Questions 10022. Elements of a Dthmation Action 1003

(a) Defamatory Material 1003SIni v. Stretch 1004Notes and Questions 1007(b) Reference to the Plaintiff 1009Knuppfer v, London Express Newspaper, Ltd 1009NotesandQuestions 1010(c) Publication lollNotesand Questions 1012

3. Defences 1014(a) Justification 1014Williams v. Reason 1015Notes and Questions 1017(b) Absolute Privilege 1013

(i) Executive Officers 1019Dowsan u. The Queen 1019(ii) Parliamentary Privilege 1022(iii) Judicial Proceedings 1022Hung v. Gardiner 1022Notes and Questions I 026

(c) Qualified Privilege 1027liii! v. Church ofSiento1ogy 1029Notes and Questions 1033(d) Fair Comment 1034WIC Radio Lid v. Sim,xwn 1035

L.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

Notes andQuestions. 1044je) Responsible Communication on Matters of Public

Interest • 1047Grunt v. TarsturCorp. 1047Notes and Questions . 1057(I) Consent 10 8Jo y.Broob 58Not and Questions 1060

4.Rem 1060(a) mi on 1060(b) Dams 1061Hilly. Churc ofScientology 1061Notes and Qu ons 1070Review Question 1070

CHAPTER 28 TORT LAW: THEORI CRITICISMS ANDALTERNATIVES 1073I. Introduction 10732. TheoretIcal Criticism of rt Law 1073

(a) Jntroduction 1073Notes 1073(b) Deterrence 1074Notes and Questions 1075(c) Compensation 1078Notes and Questions 1079(d) Theodes of Tort w Based on Conc of Justice 1080Notes and Question 1083(e) Feminist P tlve* 1086NotesandQu ons 1087

3. The No-Fau Alternatives 1088(a) In don 1088(b) No- uk Accident Compensation in New Zealan 1089Notes d Questions 1090(c) orkers’ Compensation 1092N and Questions 1093

) No-Fault Automobile Insurance in CanadaNotes and Questions 1 5Review Problem 109

SYLLABUS: TERM 2(rough guide only)

Special Duties of Care327-346

Classes 9 / 10 Liability of Public K.L.B. v. British Columbia, [2003]

Authorities (751-769) 2 S.C.R. 403 (paras. 1-29)

Classes 11 / 12 British Columbia v. Third Parties and Motions to Strike

Imperial Tobacco 2005 R. v. Imperial Tobacco 2011 SCC

SCC 49 (paras. 1-15, 44-68) 42, paras. 1-102

Classes 13 / 14 Abuse of Public Office Nuisance Law

(775-787) Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v.Ontario (Transportation), 2013

SCC_13

Classes 15 / 16 Product Liability (426-432) Product Liability Continued

Reid v. Ford MotorCompany, 2003 BCSC 1632

Classes 17 / 18 Defences in Negligence Defences in Negligence

(693-717) (722-725)Cempel v. Harrison Hot Springs

1997 CanLil 2374 (B.C.C.A.),(paras. 1-25)

Classes 19 /20 Waiver: Loychuk v. Cougar Damages (637-669, not 661-664)

Mountain Adventures Ltd.,2012 BCCA_122

Classes 21 / 22 Damages (1061-1071) Remoteness of Damages (599-623)

Classes I / 2 Review of Exam, Factum Introduction to Negligence (283-

Discussion 292)

Classes 3 /4 Duty of Care Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Police

(293-309) 2007 SCC 41 (paras. 1-89)

Classes 5/6 Childs v. Desormeaux, 2006 SCC18

Classes 8/9

Classes 7 I 8 Standard of Care Causation (56 1-564, 568-572)

(514-520) Clements v. Clements

Matharu V. Nam 2012 SCC 32 (paras. 1-54)

2006 BCSC 937 (paras. 1-109)

Guest Lecture Negligent Misrepresentation (451-459)

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS xv

Notes and Questions 265

.:: : : : :: :::::: :“ : : : : . . . : ::::::

5. The Common Law r to Search Pu t to a LawfulArrest.....................

: :; :::::.. “::::. •::::::::::: : :

:::.::::.:::.

Notes and Questions 2726. A Peace Officer’s C on Law Power of Ent

Person

INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 2831. Negligencd Defining Terms 2832. The Historical Development of Negligence 283

Notes and Questions 2853. The Elements of a Negligence Action 286

(a) Introduction 286(i) Duty of Care 287(ii) The Standard of Care and its Breach 287(iii) Causation 287(iv) Remoteness of Damages 287(v) Actual Loss 287(vi) Defences 288

Notes and Questions 288(b) Negligence: A Case Illustration 288Dunsmore v. Deshield 289Notes and Questions 291

THE DUTY OF CARE 2931. An Introduction to the Duty of Care 293

(a) The Classical Approach 293(b) The General Duty of Care Test 294M’Alister (or Donoghue) v. Stevenson 294Notes and Questions 298(c) The Development of the Modern Law of Duty 300Notes and Questions 302(d) Anns and the Supreme Court of Canada 302Cooper v. Hobart 303Notes and Questions 309(e) Developments Since Cooper v. Hobart 311Notes and Questions 313

2. lication of the Duty of Care Test 4(a) able Risk of Injury 314Motile v. N.B. . wer C’omm 314Amos v. N.B. Elec. Power 316Notes and Questions 3 18(b) Foreseeable P i f 320

Questions........................... ::::::::::::: :

320

xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 11 SPECIAL DUTIES OF CARE: AFFIRMATLVE ACTION 327Introduction to Special Duties of Care 327

2. Introduction to Duties of Affirmative Action 327Notes 328

3. The Duty to Rescue 329Osterlind v. Hill 329Notes and Questions 331Matthews v. MacLaren; Horsley v. MacLaren 332

Notes and Questions 337

Good Samaritan Act, 2001 (Ontario) 341

Review Problems 341

4. The Duty to Control the Conduct of Others 342

(a) Liability for the Intoxicated 342Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd 342Notes and Questions 346

(b) Other Duty to Control Situations 51Note d Questions 352

(c) The to Prevent Crime and Protect Others 356

Jane Doe v. Me olitan Toronto (Municipality)Commissioners of P 356Notes and Questions 359Review Problems 365

5. The Duty to Perform Gratul s ertakings 366Notes and Questions 367S,nith v. Rae 368

Zelenko v. Gim Bros., Inc 368Soulsby v. ronto 369Notes d Questions 70R tew Problems 372

CHAPTER 12 SPECIAL DUTIES OF CARE: MISCELLANEOUSCATEGORIES 3731. Introduction 3732. The Duty of Care Owed to Rescuers 373

Horsley v. MacLaren 374Notes and Questions 378Review Problems 382

3. Duti Owed to the Unborn 83(a) Pre- nception Wrongs 383Notes and Q tions 384(b) Wrongful Bi and Wrongful Life 385Notes and Questions 385(c) Wrongful Pregnancy 387Notes and Questions 389(d) Pre-Natal Injuries 391Notes and Questions 394

4. Psychiatric Harm 397(a) Introductio 397Notes and estions 398

(b) C monwealth Developments 400Al ck v. Chief Constable ofSouth Yorkshire Police 402Notes and Questions 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS xvii

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 14

(c) Canadian Position 409Mustapha v. an (1 Canada Ltd 410Notes and Questions 418Review Problem 419

rF°

n 420

6. A Manufacturer’s and Supplier’s Duty to Warn 426Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp 426Notes and Questions 433Review Problems 439

SPECIAL DUTIES OF CARE: NEGLIGENTMISREPRESENTATION 4451. Introduction 445

Notes and Questions 4472. Negligent Misrepresentation Causing Pure Economic

Loss 451Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 451Notes and Questions 459

3. egligent Misrepresentation and Contract 462(a) Concurrent Liability in Tort and Contract 4BG co International Ltd. v. B. C’. Hydra & PowerAuthori 463Notes and stions 469(b) Pre-Contra ual Misrepresentations 469Queen v. Cognos 469Notes and Questions 473Review Problem 474

SPECIAL DUTIES OF CARE: R OVERY PUREECONOMIC LOSS IN NEGLIGEN 4771. Introduction 477

Note 4782. New Categories of Pure Eco mic Loss 478

Martel Building Ltd. v. Can da 478Notes and Questions 483

3. Negligent Performa e of a Service 487B.D.c. Ltd. v. Hofs and Farms Ltd 487James v. British olumbia 489Notes and Qu tions 491

4. Negligent pply of Shoddy Goods or StructuresWinnipe Condominium Corp. No. 36 v. Bird ConstructionCo 492N s and Questions 498

eview Problems 502

xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. Relational •c Loss 502Bow Valley Husky (Beni . asnf John ShipbuildingLtd 503Not uestions 509

CHAPTER 15 THE STANDARD OF CARE1. Introduction 5132. The Common Law Standard of Care: The Reasonable

Person Test 514Ar/and v. Taylor 5 14Notes and Questions 516

3. Factors Considered in Determining Breach of theStandard of Care 518(a) Probability and Severity of the Harm 5 18Bolton v. Stone 518Pa is v. Srepney Borough Council 520Notes uestions 23(b) Cost of i voidance 525Vaughn v. Halifax-Dar th Bridge Comm 525Law Estate v. S/mice 526Notes and Questions 527(c) Social Utility 529Watt v. Heriford County Council 529Notes an estions

4. A conomic Analysis of the Standard of Care 531Unite ates ‘. Carroll Towing Co 531Notes an uestions 532

5. Special Stan rds of Care 534(a) The Stand of Care Expected of the D abled 534Fiala v. Cechmane 534Notes and Questions 539(b) TheStandardofCare xpect of Children 541Joal v. Barsby 541Notes and Questions 543(c) The Standard of C Expecte f Professionals 545White v. Turner 545Notes and Questi 5 547

6. Degrees of Ne igence 551Notes and estions 553

7. Custo 553ter N izen v. Korn 553N es and Questions 557R view Problems 558

CHAPTER 16 CAUSATION 5611. Introduction 5612. The But-For Test 562

Kauffman v. Toronto Transit Commission 562Burnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital ManagementCommittee 563Notes and Questions 564

3. Established Exceptions to the But-For Test 566(a) The Multiple Negligent Defendants Rule 566

TABLE OF CONTENTS xix

(b) The Learned Intermediary Rule(c) Informed ConsentNotes and Questions

4. Recent Attempts to Modify the But-For Test(a) Material ContributionWalker Estate v. York Finch General HospitalNotes and Questions

(i) Limiting the Material Contribution TestNotes and Questions

(b) Materially Increased RiskSnell v. FarrellNotes an Questions(c) Propo onate Cause and Loss of ChanceNotes and Q stionsReview Proble

5. Multiple CausesNotes and Question(a) Independent Insu icient Cau sAthey v. LeonatiNowlan v. Brunswick cons ction LteeNotes and Questions(b) Independent Suffic nt Ca esLambton v. MellishNotes and QuestioReview Proble

6. Issues in Ass sing the Plaintiff’s Los(a) Succe we Causes of Parallel InjuryPenner v itchellNotes nd Questions(b) evaluing the Plaintiff’s LossDillon v. Twin State Gas and Elec. CoNotes and QuestionsReview Problems

REMOTENESSIntroduction

2. Directness Versus Foreseeability(a) The Directness TestNotes and Questions(b) The Foreseeability TestThe Wagon Mound (No. 1): Overseas Tanks/up (U.K.) Ltd. v.Morts Dock & Engineering CoNotes and QuestionsReview Problems

3. Modifications to the Foreseeahility Test(a) The Kind of InjuryHughes v. Lord AdvocateNotes and Questions(b) The Thin-Skulled Plaintiff RuleSmith v. Leech Brain & CoMarconato v. FranklinNotes and Questions

566567567568568568571572573573574578582582583583584585585588588589590591591592592592594595595596597

599599600600600600

600603604605605605606608608609611

CHAPTER 17

u TABLE OF CONTENTS

c) The Possibility of Injury 614The Wagon Mound (No. 2); Overseas Tunkship (U.K.) Ltd. v.Miller Steamship Co. Ply 614Notes and Questions 617Assi,,iboine South School Division, No. 3 v. GreaterWinnipeg Gas C’o 617Notes and Questions 620Mustapha v. Culligan of canada Ltd 620

and Questions 6234. Interven auses 623Bradford v. Kane 624Notes and Questions 627Price v. Milawski 628

CHAPTER

CHAPTER 18 THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 637Introduction 637(a) The Purposes of Damage Awards in Negligence 637Notes and Questions 638(h) Preliminary Issues 640Notes and Questions 6422. Damages for Personal Injuries 645(a) Introduction 645Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd 646Notes and Questions 648(b) Pecuniary Loss: Future Care 650Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd 650Notes and Questions 654(C) Pecuniary Loss: Lost Earning Capacity 656Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd 656Notes and Questions 658(d) Considerations Relevant to Both Heads of Pecuniary

Loss 661Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd 661Notes and Questions 663(e) Non-Pecuniary Loss 664Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd 664Notes and Questions 667 CHAPTER 20(f) r Categories of Loss 6693. Survival o tions and Dependants’ Claims 670(a) Survival of ions 670Survival ofActions Ac Iberta) 670Trustee Act (Ontario) 671(h) Fatal Accidents Legislati 671Fatal Injuries Act (Nov otia) 672Fwnllv Law : : : :::: :: ::: : ::: :: . . : : : : : ::::::

(i)The ::.::::.: :::. 675 j

TABLE OF CONTENTS xxi

CHAPTER 19

CHAPTER 20

otes and Questions 678(ii e Death of a Dependant Family Member 679Notes an uestions 680

4. Damages for Pro Loss 682(a) The Assessment o e Damage to operty Itself 682(b) The Assessment of Eco ic sses Consequent on the

Damage to the Property 682(c) The Plaintiffs Obi’ ion to Mitt 683Notes and Questio 683

5. Collateral B ts 686

Review688

DEFENCES IN NEGLIGENCE 6931. Introduction 6932. Contributory Negligence 693

(a) The Development of the Defence 693Notes and Questions 694(b) Conduct Constituting Contributory Negligence 695Walls v. Mussens Ltd 695Notes and Questions 697Gagnon v. Beaulieu 699Notes and Questions 702(c) Apportionment of Loss 703Negligence Act (Ontario) 703Notes and Questions 704Iviortimer v. Cameron 707Notes and Questions 710Review Problem 711

3. Voluntary Assumption of Risk 711Dube v. Labar 712Notes and Questions 715

4. Participation in a Criminal or Immoral Act 717flail v. Hebert 717Notes and Questions 720

5. Inevitable Accident 722Rintoul v. X-Ray and Radium Indust. Ltd 722Notes and Questions 724Review Problem 725

PR OF NEGLIGENCE 7The en of Proof in a Negligence Action 727Wakelin v. n & South Western Ry. Co 728Notes and Questio 731

2. Exceptions to the Gene rinciples erning theBurden of Proof 732(a) Statutes and Shifting B ens o of 732MacDonald v. Wood 732Notes and Que s 734

otes and Questions

Injury Unintended Trespass 735

xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS

(c) ltiple Negligent Defendants 737Cookv.Le 737Notes and Questions 739

3. Res Ipsa Loquitur 743mbia (Official A ator) 744

THE TORT LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 7511. IntroductIon 7512. Special Rules for Public Authorities 752

(a) Legislative and Judicial Functions 752Bradley v. Fisher 753Notes and Questions 754tb) Crown Immunity 757Notes and Questions 758Cc) Limitation Periods and Special Procedures 760Notes and Questions 761

3. The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities 762(a) Introduction 762Just v. British Columbia 763Notes and Questions 770(b) The Effect of Cooper v. Hobart 772Notes and Questions 774

4. Misfeasance in a Public Office 775(a) Introduction 775Roncarelli v. Duplessis 775Notes and Questions 778(b) Modern Developments 778Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse 778Notes and Questions 785

5. Other Torts 787Notes and Questions 788Review Problem 788

STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND TORT LIABILIT1. roduction

Note2. Express atutory Causes of Action

Notes and Q tionsTrachsler v. HaltNotes and QuestionsReview Problem

3. The Use of Statutes in C Law NegligenceR. in Right of Can. v. S . Wheat olNotes and Question(a) Breach of St tory Duty and Commo aw Standard of

CareGalaske v. DonnellRyan v. ctoria (City)Note nd QuestionsA Note on the Canadian Charter ofRights andFreedoms

CHAPTER 21

CHAPTER 22 791791792792794795796797798799805

4.

808808811814

815

xxvi TABLE OF CONTENTS

otes and Questions

(e) sible Communication on Matters of Publi

Interest1047

Grant v. Torstar C’orp1047

4. Remedies1060

(a) Injunction1060

(b) Damages1061

Hill v. ‘hurch ofScientology1061

Notes and Questions1070

Review Question1070

CHAPTER 28 TORT LAW: THEORIES, CRITICISMS AND

ALTERNATIVES10 3

i. Introduction73

2. eoretical Criticism of Tort Law 1073

( ntroduction1073

Not1073

(b) D nce1074

Notes an tioris1075

(c) Compens i1078

Notes and Question1079

(d) Theories of Tort L Based on ncepts of Justice 1080

Notes and Questions1083

(e) Feminist Perspectives1086

Notes and Questions1087

3. The No-Fault Alternati s1088

(a) Introduction1088

(b) No-Fault Acc nt Compensation in w Zealand 1089

Notes and Ques ns1090

(c) Worker Compensation1092

Notes an uestions1093

(d) N -Fault Automobile Insurance in Canada 1094

No and Questions1095

eview Problem97