• Print
  • duty of care accounts for 29 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Fairley and Stevens (1966) Ltd v Goldsworthy (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 554.

Bailment gives rise to a standard of care relative to the benefit that accrues to the bailee and his skill. Any negligence is actionable.

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.

B.D.C. Ltd. v. Hofstrand Farms Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 228

If duty of care was extended to the respondent, based on idea that this respondent should be within the reasonable contemplation of the appellant, there would be no logical/practical limitations.

Added reliance component. Uses Hedley Bryne - Finds that there was no reliance of respondent on the appellant based on the representations or undertaking of the appellant.

Duty of Care being applied would lead to a class of plaintiffs being created and leading to a spectra of indeterminate liability. This would be unacceptable.

Bovingdon v Hergott, 2008 ONCA 2

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

Caparo v Dickman, [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)

Recognition of a duty of care now turns on 3-part test:
** 1. The plaintiff’s loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s conduct;
** 2. There was a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties;
** 3. It is “fair, just, and reasonable” for the court to impose a duty of care in light of the applicable policy considerations.

Childs v Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18

Social hosts of parties (where alcohol is served) do not owe a duty of care to third-parties who may be injured by intoxicated party guests.

Note that Canada is much harder on commercial establishments. There is a statutory cause of action in some provinces (over-serving someone is a cause of action), but they are much narrower than causes of action found in common law.

Cooper v Hobart (2001), 206 DLR (4th) 193 (SCC)

A government actor who may reasonably foresee that losses to individuals could result if careless in carrying out her or his duties under legislation, does not have a prima facie duty of care to those individuals if the duty is not specified in the legislation.

This case also clarifies the Anns Test.

Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 1186

Sundance must accept the responsibility, as the promoter of a dangerous sport, for taking all reasonable steps from allowing an intoxicated person from participating.

Demarco v Ungaro (1979) 95 DLR (3d) 385 (Ont HCJ)

Lawyers in Ontario do not have immunity from actions in negligence arising from their practice.

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co, [1964] 1 QB 518 (CA)

No, one owes a duty of care with respect to the foreseeable route of injury. Where this route is exhausted and no damage is done, the duty is also exhausted. That the same route initiated a second unforseeable risk does not extend the duty or give rise to a second duty.

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801

A statement as to the future is not a statement of fact and cannot amount to a misrepresentation.

A party's relative expertise compared to the other party must be deemed to have warranted a forecast was made with reasonable care and skill, as the statement induced the contract.

Haughian v Paine, [1987] 4 WWR 97, 55 Sask R 99 (Sask CA)

Informed consent requires the adequate disclosure of medical risk with sufficient information to the person consenting.

Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41

1. The police have a duty of care to their suspects.
2. There is such a thing as a tort of negligent investigation.

Horsley v MacLaren (The Ogopogo), [1972] SCR 441 (also Matthews v Maclaren)

1. Assuming the duty: Whether there is a duty or not, the moment you start acting you are subject to a duty that you cannot be negligent in fulfilling that duty.

2. Causation: Negligence has to cause the injury to the plaintiff.

3. Duty to rescuers: The general rule is that if a person by his fault creates a situation of peril, he must answer for it to any person who attempts to rescue the person who is in danger. However, this is subject to whether the person's actions are faulty enough to induce the other party to risk his life.