• Print
  • negligence accounts for 138 out of 811 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

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.

Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907

The class of persons must be decided on a case by case basis, television not generally but in some circumstances may be equivalent to seeing and hearing, and immediacy remains a requirement.

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.

Arland v Taylor, [1955] OR 131 (CA)

The standard of care use to judge conduct is based on what the conduct of a reasonable person would be.

Arndt v Smith, [1997] 2 SCR 539

Determining causation in cases of medical risk and a duty to inform requires an application of the modified objective test
** Courts should consider what the reasonable patient in the plaintiff’s circumstances would have done if faced with the same situation

Assiniboine South School Division, No 3 v Hoffer & Greater Winnipeg Gas Co, [1970] 16 DLR (3d) 703; affd [1971] 4 WWR 746, affd [1973] 6 WWR 765

The test of foreseeability of damage is a question of what is possible rather than what is probable.

Athey v Leonati [1996] 3 SCR 458, 140 DLR (4th) 235

All of it, apportionment is not appropriate here because the ultimate goal of torts is to compensate the victim for their full damages.

Athey v Leonati, [1996] 3 SCR 458

If the defendant’s negligence materially contributes to the plaintiff’s single indivisible injury, the defendant is liable and the plaintiff can recover 100% of the damages

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 2 All ER 1068 QBD

When evidence shows it would not have likely prevented the death.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, [1968] 1 All ER 1068

The causal relation between the alleged negligence (or actual careless conduct) and the injury must be made out by the evidence and consistent with the context.

Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534

Yes, the basis of vicarious liability is to hold the employer responsible for the risks their activities created and/or materially enhanced in the community, whether or not they desired it. This is necessary to ensure that there is fair compensation for the victim and adequate deterrence.
-No exception for non-profits.

BG Checo International Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 SCR 12

Concurrency rule: If the tort duty is not contradicted by the contract, it remains intact and may be sued upon.

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.

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

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