• Print
  • Torts accounts for 238 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Motherwell et al v Motherwell (1976), 73 D.L.R. (3d) 62 (Alta. SC, App Div)

Invasions of privacy may warrant the creation of a new category of nuisance if it is sufficiently within the concept of the principles that the tort is trying to advance (not specifically defined as a common law tort of invasion of privacy).

Moule v NB Electric Power Comm (1960), 24 DLR (2d) 305, affirming 22 DLR (2d) 253 (SCC)

Precautions must be taken against any reasonable foreseeability of causing harm.

Murray v McMurchy, [1949] 2 DLR 442 (BC SC)

If it is an not a medical emergency, doctors must leave decisions to the patient.

Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd, 2008 SCC 27

In a duty of care analysis concerning nervous shock, damage caused by a breach in the standard of care must be reasonably foreseeable. The plaintiff must show that her or his mental injury would have occurred in a person of ordinary, reasonable fortitude.

Nelles v Ontario, [1989] 2 SCR 170

Four elements are necessary to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution:
** 1. The proceedings must have been initiated by the defendant;
** 2. The proceedings must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff;
** 3. The absence of reasonable and probable cause; and
** 4. Malice, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect.

Newton v Newton, 2003 BCCA 389.

Unpredictable behaviour with no intent to cause harm does not have a reasonable enough foreseeability to create a duty of care.

Unpredictable behaviour that causes harm is not foreseeable.

Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's of London v. Scalera, 2000 SCC 24

The plaintiff in a sexual battery case does not have to prove lack of consent; the defence counsel must raise issue of consent and has the burden of proof.

Norberg v Wynrib, [1992] 2 SCR 226

The ex turpi causa defence is limited; there must be a sufficient causal link between the injury and the crime committed.

In a relationship of unequal power, the defence of consent may not be available if acquired by a person using their position of authority.

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)," [1961] UKPC 1

Reasonable foreseeability, rather than directness, is the primary test for liability in negligence.

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or "Wagon Mound (No 2)" [1967] 1 AC 617

Tortfeasors are liable for injuries that are (from their own perspective) possible and therefore reasonably foreseeable consequences of their negligence
** This is a modified objective test
** The smaller the risk and higher the cost for mitigating risk, the less responsibility there is for the tortfeasor to mitigate the risk

Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound #1) [1961] AC 388 (PC)

No, foreseeability sets the scope of liability and compensable consequences in line with more general views of moral culpability.

Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (1928), 248 NY 339, 162 NE 99.

There is no general duty of care owe by one person to another.

Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co, 162 NE 99 (NYCA 1928)

No, an invaded interest is not sufficient. It must have been visible to the reasonably prudent eye that an unreasonable risk was being created that might have resulted in harm to P.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council, [1950] UKHL 3

Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for worker safety with particular regard to each of their employees’ circumstances.

Parkland (County of) v Stetar et al [1975] 2 SCR 884, 50 DLR (3d) 376

It is possible to hold D1 liable for 100% although they may only partially be at fault.
D1 may not recover from D2 where they have been sued and, for whatever reason substantive or procedural, D2 was not found liable.