• Print
  • Torts accounts for 182 out of 726 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

(1837), 132 ER 490 (CP)

The reasonable man standard should be used because using the defendant’s own judgement as a standard would destroy the rule through infinite variability.

(1842), 152 ER 402 (Ex Ct)

No, a duty in contract to someone else cannot without more ground a duty in tort.

(1862), 122 ER 27 (Exch)

A cost for the public benefit should not be inflicted on someone without compensation.

(1879), 11 CD 852 (CA)

Yes, they can subject to local standards, because though the activity is ongoing the annoyance is new.

(1910), 22 OLR 533 (Div Ct)

“What causes material discomfort and annoyance (not necessarily rising to the level of physical illness) for the ordinary purposes of life (i.e. according to a local standard) to a man’s house or to his property…”

(1966) 115 CLR 199 (Aust HC)

Age below the age of the majority should be considered when assessing what ought to be foreseen with the result that a child may or may not be found liable for negligence (not absolute rule can be determined a priori).

114 So 2d 357 (Fla Dist CA 1959)

No, there is no right to light recognized in the law of U.S. It’s a matter of local by-laws to regulate these buildings.

146 Mass 349, 15 NE 768 (SJC 1888)

The relevant standard is the common care of the person of ordinary prudence.

340909 Ontario Ltd v Huron Steel Products Ltd (1990), 73 OR (2d) 641 (HCJ)

What constitutes unreasonable interference:
** 1. The severity of the interference, having regard to its nature and duration and effect;
** 2. The character of the locale;
** 3. The utility of the defendant’s conduct;
** 4. The sensitivity of the use interfered with.

373409 Alberta Ltd (Receiver of) v Bank of Montreal, 2002 SCC 81

In the context of money or negotiable instruments, a party acting with proper authorization from the rightful owner is not liable in conversion.

436 NE 2d 502 (NYCA 1982)

Customary practice may, but need not be, evidence of the standard of care. The underlying question is always what a reasonable person would do.

Agar v Canning (1965), 54 WWR 302 (Man QB)

Consent does not give blanket immunity from liability. Conduct exceeding consent renders a defendant liable for injuries that result.

Aitken v Gardiner (1956) 4 DLR (2d) 119 (ON SC)

The plaintiff may recover value of chattel at time of conversion (general rule) and potentially also consequential losses caused by the conversion (to compensate the plaintiff if the thing increased in value between the time it was taken and the time of the trial).

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1992] 1 AC 310

A person suffering nervous shock must have reasonable proximity to the event that caused the shock in order to claim for damages.

Anns v Merton London Borough Council, [1978] AC 728 (HL)

Not a specific test for determining whether to recognize a duty of care; rather it is an approach for analyzing existing categories and recognizing new categories of negligence:
** 1. Whether between the defendant and the plaintiff there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises
** 2. If yes to the first question, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which act to negative (or to reduce or limit) the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.