• Print
  • Torts accounts for 162 out of 705 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

United States v Carroll Towing Co (1947), 159 F2d 169 (2d Cir)

A reasonable risk is one whose cost of avoidance is less than probability of the injury, multiplied by the severity of the injury should it occur.

Vaughn v Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Comm (1961), 29 DLR (2d) 523 (NS SC)

A person is liable in negligence when they do not take reasonable steps to address/avoid the risks of their actions.

Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Co (1910), 109 Minn 456, 124 NW 221

Necessity is only a defence if peril is imminent; and if you preserve your property at the expense of another person's property, that constitutes trespass and you are liable for the damage.
** If one preserves property at the expense of another’s without threat or menace from plaintiff’s property or an unavoidable incident due to act of god, then P is entitled to compensation for damages.

Wackett v Calder (1965), 51 DLR (2d) 598 (BC CA)

An act of repelling an (apprehended) attack does not need to be measured with complete exactitude or nicety.

Walker Estate v York Finch General Hospital, 2001 SCC 23, [2001] 1 SCR 647

If the defendant’s negligence materially contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, then it establishes causation

Walls v Mussens Ltd et al (1969), 11 DLR (3d) 245 (NB CA)

In an emergency situation, the test for contributory negligence is whether the plaintiff did what an ordinarily prudent person might reasonably have done under the stress of the moment.

White v Turner et al (1981), 120 DLR (3d) 269

Professionals have a duty to perform according to the standard of care of their profession.

Wilkinson v Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57

You can recover for nervous shock even if no physical injury was suffered

Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v DFG, [1997] 3 SCR 925

1. Mother has no duty of care to her unborn child;
2. The state has no duty of care to an unborn child.

Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v Bird Construction Co., (1995), 121 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (S.C.C.)

A building contractor, architect or engineer has a duty of care in negligence to subsequent purchasers who may suffer financial loss as a result of repairing a latent defect that would if manifest give rise to a “real and substantial danger” to the inhabitants.

Wright v McLean (1956), 7 DLR (2d) 253 (BC SC)

Those engaging in sport imply their consent to the ordinary risks of the sport.

Zelenko v Gimbel Bros, Inc (1935), 287 NYS 134 (Sup Ct), aff'd (1936), 287 NYS 136 (App Div)

The general rule: if a defendant owes a plaintiff no duty, then refusal to act is not negligence.

However, a person may assume a duty by meddling in matter with which legalistically it had no concern.