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

Style of causeRatio

Bolton v Stone, [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078

There is no special duty of care owed by land owners to persons on an adjoining highway. The landowner is held to the standard of care of a reasonable, ordinary, prudent person. If the land owner's conduct is not unreasonable, he has not breached any duty to his neighbor.

The test: Whether the risk of damage to a person on the road was so small that a reasonable person in the position of the appellants, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it unnecessary to refrain from taking steps to prevent the danger.

Bovingdon v Hergott, 2008 ONCA 2

A doctor has a duty of care to the mother, but not to the fetus.

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v Saint John Ship Building Ltd., (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.C.C.)

According to Justice McLachlin, there is the problem of indeterminate liability that must be overcome and if not that is sufficient reason to deny a duty of care under the circumstances.

The plaintiffs tried to argue that there were factors that addressed the problem of indeterminacy in this case, but McLachlin was not prepared to accept any of them. There simply was no rationale basis to allow recovery to the plaintiffs and to deny it to others (e.g. other investors, employees and suppliers of the rig).

Bradford Corp v Pickles (1895), AC 587 (HL)

No one has right to water running to their property. The diversion of water by a neighbour does not constitute a nuisance.

Bradford v Kanellos [1974] scr 409, 40 dlr (3D) 578

No, because hysterical conduct is not within the foreseeable risk created by the grill.

Bradford v Kanellos, [1974] SCR 409

If a consequence is not within the scope of what is reasonably foreseeable, then there can be no liability

Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871)

A member of the Judiciary cannot be sued in a civil tort claim

Bruce v Dyer (1966), 58 DLR (2d) 211 (Ont HC)

Assault can be pled as part of a defence to battery.

Brunswick Construction Ltd v Nowlan (1974) 21 BLR 27, 49 DLR (3d) 93

Where there are concurrent torts, both contributing to the same damage (whether or not the damage would have occurred in the absence of either cause), either party causing or contributing to the damage is liable for whole damage to the plaintiff

Brushett v Cowan (1990), 69 DLR (4th) 743 (Nfld CA)

The full extent of consent is determined by looking at all of the circumstances arising from the doctor-patient relationship.

Butterfield v Forrester (1809), 103 ER 926 (KB)

Negligence does not give rise to liability if P was injured as a result of their own carelessness.

C v Wren (1986), 35 DLR (4th) 419 (Alta CA)

Age is not a barrier to consent; all that matters is that the person is able to understand the risks and benefits of treatment.

Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd, [1999] 1 SCR 142

Breach of confidence is a hybrid cause of action drawing on both equity and common law. Therefore judges have discretion in formulating remedies.

Caltagirone v Scozzari-Cloutier, [2007] OJ No 4003 (Sup Ct (Sm Cl))

6 questions to asks to determine whether it has been an actionable breach:
** 1. Would a reasonable person consider the information to be private?
** 2. Has the plaintiff consented to the collection of the information in some way?
** 3. Has the info been acquire for a legal process or public interest reason
** 4. Has the plaintiff consented to the disclosure or publication of that information?
** 5. If no consent, has the information been disclosed for legal or public interest reason?
** 6. Is the legal or public interest reason one that a reasonable person would consider to outweigh the interest of the individual in wanting to keep the information private

Campbell v SS Kresge Co Ltd et al, [1976] 74 DLR (3d) 717 (NSSC)

Restricting a person’s lawful movement by threat of non-physical harm given from a position of authority (duress) constitutes false imprisonment.