• Print
  • negligence accounts for 72 out of 705 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.

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

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] 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.

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

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

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

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.

Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32.

While it may be possible, in rare circumstances, for the "material contribution" test to apply, that it has never in fact been applied by the Supreme Court of Canada. Accordingly, the specific application of the "material contribution" test is an open issue that has yet to have been dealt with conclusively by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Material Contribution test can only be applied in cases of multi-tort feasors.