FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,189 times | Saved to 249 briefcases
Vaughn v Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Comm (1961), 29 DLR (2d) 523 (NS SC)

Facts:

Bridge operated and maintained by defendant was painted. Flecks of paint blew off by wind onto nearby cars. Owner of one of those cars sued in negligence. Defendant argued that it took all necessary measures to prevent or minimize injury to the plaintiff.

Issue(s):

What would a reasonable person have done to avoid the risk of paint falling onto cars?

Ratio:

A person is liable in negligence when they do not take reasonable steps to address/avoid the risks of their actions.

Analysis:

Reasonable to assume that paint would fall; Some precautions were taken.

Many different actions that a reasonable defendant could have taken (not difficult, not expensive):
** Warning car owner
** Posting signs
** Moving cars
** Wiping paint off cars promptly

Holding:

Decision for plaintiff. Defendant was negligent.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.