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

Style of causeRatio

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.

[1927] 2 DLR 573 (BCSC)

No, a strong probability amounting to a moral certainty of an actual and real danger must be shown. Demonstrating the fear itself is not enough.

[1932] AC 562 (HL)

-“you must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions that will harm your neighbour...
--The Neighbour principle: One owes a duty of care to “…persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
---This means manufacturers who send out their goods in such a way as to not allow for any inspection before it gets to the ultimate consumer have a duty of care to that consumer.

[1951] AC 850 (HL)

The relevant standard is how a reasonable person would act considering both the severity AND likelihood of harm. Likelihood may be so negligible as to render action reasonable.

[1953] AC 643 (HL)

It takes considerable evidence about the likelihood and foreseeability of the risk to show that a reasonable employer would have taken a drastic step like closing down the factory to mitigate.

[1954] 1 WLR 835 (CA)

Life-saving activity justifies a level of risk unjustified by commercial activity.

[1967]1 AC 617 at 641 (PC)

Yes, if there is absolutely no reason not to mitigate it (e.g. it even runs against D’s interest) it may be actionable.

[1977] 3 All ER 338 (CA)

No, nuisance is about a balancing of interests between neighbours, public and private, etc. They knew about the cricket when they bought the home. There is an important interest in protecting cricket fields against encroaching development.

[1981] 1 All ER 659 (Ch.D.)

If the use of a property itself may be an affront to ordinary sensibilities, then there is a triable ground for nuisance.

[1995] 3 SCR 674, 127 DLR (4th) 577

The standard practice of an expert profession can only be found negligent when it is open to a layman trier of fact to find obvious risks. If a layman is not qualified to assess the practice, they cannot find it negligent.

[1998] 1 SCR 424

When defendant has provided no explanation for an accident, and negligence can be inferred as a more likely explanation for the accident than not.

[2004] 1 AC 46 (HL)

We must not only consider the likelihood of a risk, but the social value of the activity causing it and the cost of prevention.