1 CAUSATION IN TORT AFTER RESURFICE PAPER 1.2 Causation in Tort Since Resurfice: Overview These materials were prepared by David Cheifetz of Bennett Best Burn, LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, June David Cheifetz
3 1.2.1 CAUSATION IN TORT SINCE RESURFICE: OVERVIEW A This piece contains a broad outline of the contents of a larger article titled Risk As Legal Causation: Causation In Tort In Canadian Common Law After Resurfice Corp v. Hanke which you will find online. b That article, itself, is based on an even larger analysis which you will also find online at the URL mentioned in the first footnote. Causation, in some sense, is a requirement in all civil actions in which a plaintiff seeks compensation for injury from a defendant. The action must fail if the plaintiff is not able to satisfy the causation requirement. Snell v. Farrell held: [c]ausation is an expression of the relationship that must be found to exist between the tortious act of the wrongdoer and the injury to the victim in order to justify compensation of the latter out of the pocket of the former."1 Before Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2 a plaintiff had to show, on the balance of probability, that the wrongful conduct of the particular defendant (or wrongful conduct for which that defendant was vicariously liable3) actually caused the loss complained of. 4 That principle also applied to actions for breach of contract. 5 There were two tests for proof or disproof of the existence of factual causation in tort: the but-for test and the Athey material- contribution test. 6 Resurfice altered that law. Resurfice created a different version of a material contribution test. Unlike the Athey version, the Resurfice version is not a test for tortious conduct that contributes to the injury. It is a test for tortious conduct which does nothing more than contribute to the risk of the occurrence of the injury which later occurred. 7 In Resurfice, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that, in certain circumstances, a plaintiff will satisfy the causation requirement by doing no more than establishing, on the balance of probability, that a defendant is at fault and that that fault created the risk of the A B Bennett Best Burn LLP, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. I have greatly benefitted from and continue to benefit greatly from ongoing discussions with Professors Lewis Klar, Vaughan Black, and Russell Brown, and from discussions with and among other members of the online Obligations Discussion Group of whom there are too many to thank, individually. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2008 Law Society of Upper Canada, Special Lectures Personal Injury Law, April 2, A revised version of the Summary in D. Cheifetz, Causation In Canada In The Third Millennium: Nothing Is Now Enough online at [Scraping]. The table of contents appears at the end of this article. 1 Snell v. Farrell, , 2 S.C.R. 311 at 326 [Snell] SCC 7,  1 S.C.R. 333 [Resurfice]. 3 Bazley v. Curry,  2 S.C.R Stewart v. Pettie,  1 S.C.R. 131 at para. 60; Resurfice, supra, note 2, at para. 23; Athey v. Leonati,  3 S.C. R. 458 at paras [Athey]; Snell, supra, note 1. 5 Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada,  2 S.C.R.860 at para. 102, 2000 SCC 60. To be recoverable, a loss must be caused by the contractual breach in question. 6 Athey, supra, note 4. 7 Russell Brown, Material Contribution s Expanding Hegemony: Factual Causation after Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke (2007), 45 Can. Bus. L. J. 432 at 447 [Hegemony]; Vaughan Black and David Cheifetz, Through the Looking Glass, Darkly: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke (2007), 45 Alta. L. Rev. 241 at 252 [Looking Glass].
4 1.2.2 occurrence of the very injury that the plaintiff suffered. 8 The Supreme Court described this principle as a material-contribution test. 9 In Sam v. Wilson, the BC Court of Appeal stated that the Resurfice material-contribution principle is not a test of causation at all; rather, it is a rule of law based on policy. 10 The Supreme Court did not explain whether the use of the indefinite article a rather than the definite article the means there are other valid versions of a material-contribution test in Canadian tort jurisprudence. It said nothing about the status of the material-contribution test it had established in Athey, unless we infer, from the use of a material-contribution test in Resurfice, that there may be more than one version so that the Athey version still exists. The Athey version of the materialcontribution test is another manner of proving that the tortious conduct is a factual cause of the injury. It was accepted that the Athey material-contribution test was easier to satisfy than the but-for test. 11 The general rule was that the Athey material-contribution test applied only where the but-for test was unworkable. However, the Supreme Court had indicated that there could be cases where the plaintiff could resort to the more-easily satisfied material-contribution test, even though the but-for test was not unworkable on the facts. 12 The Resurfice test is not applicable to facts to which the but-for test applies. 13 The Resurfice materialcontribution test applies to claims in tort where two requirements 14 are met. (1) The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, breached that duty, and the type of injury suffered by the plaintiff is of the type that that breach could have caused. 15 (2) It is impossible for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant s negligence caused the plaintiff s injury using the but-for test due to factors that are outside of the plaintiff s control Resurfice, supra, note 2, at paras Resurfice was a tort action. However, the consequences in practice will be wider because causation, in some sense, is an aspect of all common law causes of action. Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.,  U.K.H.L. 22,  3 All E.R. 305 and Barker v. Corus (UK) Plc.,  U.K.H.L. 20,  2 A.C. 572 established the United Kingdom version of this fault-and-risk based material-contribution test. In Brett v. University of Reading,  EWCA Civ 88 at para. 26, England s Court of Appeal wrote: In a case such as this, Fairchild exceptionally relieves a claimant who has proved exposure and breach of duty from having to prove causation. What it does not do is to relieve him from proving the other elements. In Barker, Lord Hoffmann wrote, at para. 1, that the Fairchild exception is an exceptional and less demanding test for the necessary causal link between the defendant s conduct and the damage. 9 Resurfice, supra, note 2, at para BCCA 622, at para. 109 per Smith J.A. 11 Aristorenas v. Comcare Health Services (2006), 274 D.LR. (4th) 304 at para. 60, 2006 CanLII (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused 2007 CanLII (S.C.C.) [Aristonrenas]. In Sam v. Wilson, 2007 BCCA 622, at para. 109, Smith J.A. described Athey material-contribution as a causal yardstick and as a synonym for but-for. See also Brown, Hegemony, supra, note 7, at 434, and Black and Cheifetz, Looking Glass, supra, note Walker Estate v. York Finch General Hospital,  1 S.C.R. 647, 2001 SCC 23 [Walker Estate]. 13 Resurfice, supra, note 2, at para Resurfice, supra, note 2, at para Ibid., at para. 25. This is known as injury falling within the ambit of the risk. 16 Ibid., at para. 25. I have reversed the order of the requirements because causation is irrelevant absent fault or other breach of obligation owed to the plaintiff. The standard practice in common law courts is to deal with the breach of obligation issue first: see, Lewis Klar, Tort Law, 3d ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2003) at , note 8 [Tort Law]. If there is no breach, the trial court does not have to deal with causation. However, in the appropriate case, the court might still decide the causation a damages issues. This might avoid the need for a new trial on these issues in the event the decision on breach of obligation is reversed on appeal.
5 1.2.3 According to Resurfice, the but-for question now involves asking whether there is a substantial connection between the conduct of the defendant and the injury suffered by injured person. 17 The Athey material-contribution test applies where the but-for test is unworkable. We do not have a useful explanation of the meaning of unworkable. 18 Whatever unworkable meant, in practice the Athey material-contribution test was an easier test for the plaintiff to satisfy than the but-for test. 19 Where the Athey test applied, factual causation was established by the plaintiff showing, on the balance of probability, that the tortious conduct materially contributed to the occurrence of the injury. The tortious conduct materially contributed if it is more than a de minimis contributing factor. 20 In Canadian tort law, that there cannot be tortious fault without conduct that unreasonably increases risk. All conduct increases the risk of something. Reasonably increasing risk is not sufficient for the conduct to be held to be wrongful. There will not have been a duty of care, in respect of the injury that actually occurred, unless the injury was of the type whose risk of occurring would be foreseeably increased by the type of tortious conduct in issue. Accordingly, the second criterion for the Resurfice material-contribution test will always be satisfied wherever there is a breach of duty. 21 Absent any other defence, and assuming causation, a negligent defendant in breach of a duty of care to the plaintiff will always be liable for foreseeable damage. 22 As a result, assuming breach of duty that is, assuming a finding of tortious conduct the only relevant criterion for the application of the Resurfice material-contribution test is the impossibility of proof of factual causation using but-for requirement. Resurfice has created a new situation in Canada: one where liability may be imposed on defendant(s) in the absence of factual causation. Tortious conduct (fault) may be enough. The Resurfice materialcontribution test allows one or more defendants to be held liable even though, in fact, it is not possible to show that the plaintiff s injury was probably caused by any defendant, or even by anybody s tortious conduct. In this respect, the consequences of the Resurfice material-contribution test differ from both Cook v. Lewis 23 and Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. 24 The necessary premise in both is that the injury was actually caused by at least one of the defendants. The reverse-onus rule in Cook applies only where the plaintiff s injury was actually caused by the conduct one or the other of the defendants. The only issue is which one. In the Hollis learned-intermediary situation, the injury was actually caused by the use of the manufacturer s product. However, the manufacturer is precluded from establishing that its negligence did not make a legal difference, even if it did not. The Resurfice material-contribution test was not announced so that the Supreme Court could apply that test to the facts of Resurfice, in order to decide the appeal. It was not required and not applied. The 17 Resurfice, supra, note 2, at para Brown, Hegemony, supra, note 7, at , Ken Cooper Stephenson Justice in Saskatchewan Robes: The Bayda Tort Legacy (2007), 70 Sask. L. Rev. 269 at 303 ( there is nowhere... any sensible description of what is meant by material contribution ). See also D. Cheifetz, The Snell Inference And Material Contribution: Defining The Indefinable And Hunting The Causative Snark A Not Excessively Subtle and Theoretical Examination of Proof of Factual Causation in Canadian Tort Law (2005), 30 Adv. Q. 1 at 103 ( the content of the material contribution doctrine has all of the substance of gossamer and a thimble is all we need to contain it ). 19 Aristorenas, supra, note 11, at para Athey, supra, note 4, at paras Brown, Hegemony, supra, note 7, at 449; Black and Cheifetz, Looking Glass, supra, note 7, at 247; Klar, Tort Law, supra, note 22, at Brown, Hegemony, supra, note 7, at  S.C.R  4 S.C.R. 634.
6 1.2.4 Resurfice material-contribution test is a statement of judicial policy with no stated Canadian antecedents and no explanation for its existence other than the Supreme Court s assertion that it is required by basic notions of fairness and justice. 25 The Resurfice material-contribution test is not an incremental change in Canadian common law tort jurisprudence. However, rather than explaining why it was revising some 400 years of causation jurisprudence, the Supreme Court chose to advise the profession that [m]uch judicial and academic ink has been spilled over the proper test for causation in cases of negligence. It is neither necessary nor helpful to catalogue the various debates. It suffices at this juncture to simply assert the general principles that emerge from the cases. 26 The Resurfice material-contribution test does not assert any general principles that emerge from any Canadian cases, common law or civil law. Resurfice does not tell us what other cases the Supreme Court might have had in mind. It is inconsistent with recent, prior, Supreme Court of Canada decisions pronounced by the majority of the judges who composed the Resurfice panel. It is not clear that there are currently any principled limits on the reach of the Resurfice materialcontribution test. Resurfice appears to represent the evolution of material contribution in causation into a generic and comprehensive alternative to the traditional but-for test, applicable to all cases where the plaintiff cannot demonstrate probable cause under the but-for test. 27 [I]f the plaintiff s only obstacle to recovery is causation, then causation is no obstacle. 28 If fault is not an issue, and causation is not an issue, the only remaining issue is damages. In the Resurfice version of the material-contribution test, 29 which is stated to apply only in exceptional cases 30 or special circumstances 31 liability may be imposed 32 on the basis of fault and the creation of risk, even though the but for test is not satisfied. 33 The stated justification is that it would offend basic notions of fairness and justice to deny liability by applying a but for approach. 34 The facts of Resurfice do not provide a context for any discussion of the scope of the new version of the test. The exceptional cases 35 and special circumstances 36 labels used in Resurfice are devoid of useful content. The impossibility requirement only appears to restrict the test to the rarest of situations. The Supreme Court wrote: [t]he impossibility must be due to factors that are outside of the plaintiff s control; for example, current limits of scientific knowledge. 37 However, the use of for example suggests that current limits of scientific knowledge is not a necessary pre-condition. In addition, the two examples that court gave are not, in fact, cases that necessarily have gaps in the evidence due to any issue involving the limits of scientific knowledge. 25 Resurfice, supra, note 2, para Resurfice, supra, note 2, para Brown, Hegemony, supra, note 7, at Brown, Hegemony, supra, note 7, at So labelled by the Supreme Court without saying anything about the status of the Athey materialcontribution test. 30 Resurfice, supra, note 2, at para Ibid., at para Ibid., at para Ibid., at para Ibid., at para Resurfice, supra, note 2, para Ibid., para Ibid., para. 25.
7 1.2.5 It is necessarily implicit in the second of the Resurfice material-contribution prerequisites fault and injury within the ambit of the risk that the tortious conduct be capable of causing the injury complained of. The injury would not, otherwise, be within the ambit of the risk. There could not be a duty of care in respect of injury which could not possibly be caused by the defendant s conduct. However, this possibility of factual causation does not eliminate the competing possibility of no factual causation. Resurfice says nothing about the situation where the possibility that the injury was not actually caused by a defendant s tortious conduct is at least equal to or greater in some relevant quantitative or qualitative sense than the possibility it was actually caused. In fact, Resurfice says nothing about any quantitative or qualitative threshold for sufficient possibility. Where there is more than one potential wrongdoer, the injury damage in respect of which the Resurfice material-contribution test is invoked will always be the same injury. That creates two issues. The first is the nature of the liability as between the injured person and the wrongdoers: solidary (joint) or proportional (several). The second is the issue of contribution between the wrongdoers, if their liability to the injured person is solidary. Resurfice says nothing about these issues, either I examine aspects of these two issues in D. Cheifetz Possibilistic Liability For Damages and Apportionment of Damages, The Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., June 26, 2008.
9 Risk as Legal Causation: Table of Contents I. What Is Legal Factual Causation? Why You Should Read This Article Does Legal Factual Causation Matter? If Yes, Why Does It Matter? Risk As Legal Causation II. III. IV. But-For: Not Completely Dead But Not At All Well The Meaning of Factual Cause When Does But-For Apply? What Is A Substantial Connection? But-for: Unanswered Questions Variations: Hollis v. Dow Corning The Material-Contribution Test: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow The Material-Contribution Test, Yesterday: How We Got Here The Material-Contribution Test, Today Setting The Stage Discussion of Principles: What Is Material Contribution To Risk? Impossibility of Use of But-For Walker Estate Cook v. Lewis Impossibility Requirement Restated Ambit of Risk SCC Cases Since Resurfice Conclusion The Material-Contribution Test: Tomorrow Issues and Questions When Does Material Contribution Apply? Relevant Factors Single Multiple Causal Mechanisms Case Law One Wrongdoer or Multiple Wrongdoers Divisible and Indivisible Injuries Solidary (Joint) or Proportional (Several) Liability Apportionment Between Tortious and Non-Tortious Causes Apportionment and Risk: Contributory Negligence, Failure to Mitigate, Contribution Between Tortfeasors Mass Torts, Class Actions & Causation Unanswered Material-Contribution Questions British Columbia: The Material-Contribution Test Since Resurfice V. Damages Causation VI. Conclusion
CAUSATION AND LOSSES Professor Lewis N Klar, Q.C. (Based on Klar, Tort Law, 4 th ed at 457-466, and Klar Causation And Apportionment of Losses, Alberta Court of Queen s Bench Conference, November 14, 2008)
TORTS 2013 PAPER 2.1 Five Easy Enough Pieces: The Nuts and Bolts of Factual Causation in Negligence after Clements These materials were prepared by David Cheifetz, Barrister, Vancouver, BC, for the Continuing
A PRIMER REGARDING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE By Stuart Ross and Bottom Line Research & Communications 1 Introduction We all deal with allegations of contributory negligence in response to the claims of a
CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements,  7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements
FACT PATTERN ONE The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn  A.J. No. 308 The infant plaintiff developed a large blood clot in his brain at some time either before or during the
Submissions on Civil Liability Reform The Coalition of British Columbia Businesses October 2002 Introduction: The following submissions are made on behalf of the Coalition of British Columbia Businesses.
The Supreme Court of Canada and the Law of Causation Revisited Again Kerry Nash and Stephen Moore With Additional Comments by Roderick Winsor Blaney McMurtry LLP The Supreme Court of Canada and the Law
The Last Word on Causation From the Supreme Court of Canada (Maybe?) Stephen R. Moore Blaney McMurtry LLP firstname.lastname@example.org The Last Word on Causation From the Supreme Court of Canada (Maybe?) Introduction
LEXIS NEXIS WEBINAR 17.9.13 ASBESTOS UPDATE THE SHIFTING SANDS OF CAUSATION INTRODUCTION: 1. The issue of causation has long been and continues to be a difficult one for industrial disease claims, and,
Increasing the risk of injury and proof of causation on the balance of probabilities Sandy Steel A risk is a probability of a negative outcome. 1 The concept of risk plays several distinct roles in relation
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 DATE: 20120629 DOCKET: 34100 BETWEEN: Joan Clements, by her Litigation Guardian, Donna Jardine Appellant and Joseph Clements Respondent
LAW OF CAUSATION: A REVIEW THE AN UPDATE AND at the Ontario Bar Association Conference Presented in London on March 9, 2004 held & Solicitors Barristers Box 2335 PO Andrew C. Murray By: LLP Lerners London
Causation for nursing Abstract This article considers the application of the tests of factual and legal causation to cases of medical negligence. It is argued that in light of the recent development of
UPDATE ON CAUSATION December 13, 2007 Arthur R. Camporese Camporese Sullivan Di Gregorio Barristers and Solicitors 1700-One King Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1A4 (905) 522-7068 (905) 522-5734 (Fax)
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE LAW OF CAUSATION Stephen R. Moore Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.3950 email@example.com and Bianca Matrundola Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.597.4877 firstname.lastname@example.org The
Western Journal of Legal Studies Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 1 11-19-2012 Clements v. Clements: A material contribution to the jurisprudence - The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the law of causation Emir
Principles of European Tort Law TITLE I. Basic Norm Chapter 1. Basic Norm Art. 1:101. Basic norm (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage. (2) Damage
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY: UNIFORM APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT AS COMPARED TO RESTATEMENT THIRD, TORTS Presented by: Douglas G. Houser Bullivant Houser Bailey, P.C. Portland, Oregon -2- Where
Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,
BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Savings 3 Apportionment of liability where contributory negligence 4 Defence of common employment abolished
May 2013 A Framework Emerges - Recent developments in the Law of Intentional Economic Torts Craig Ferris and Lisa Peters Economic torts provide relief in relation to intentional interference with economic
REPORT TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON WORKERS COMPENSATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Application of Legal Causation Principles Assessment of Permanent Partial Disability Pensions Deeming of Employment Opportunities
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland
Demystifying the Law of Causation: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke* Introduction Causation is one of the essential elements in a plaintiff successfully establishing negligence. However, trying to come to grips
Negligence: Element III: Proximate Cause Chapter 15 Introduction Proximate Cause. 1) the causation question (cause in fact): Did the defendant cause the plaintiff s injury? 2) The policy question ( a cut-off
AN OVERVIEW OF THE LAW OF CAUSATION by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research & Communications 1 1 Introduction As counsel, we must frequently grapple with the law of causation, and apply it to our particular
TORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL SINGAPORE Table of Contents Sources Used...4 1. INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE...5 2. DUTY OF CARE...6 2.1 Introduction & Development of Duty of Care...6 3. DUTY OF CARE- Kinds of Harm...10
EL TRIGGER IN THE SUPREME COURT: WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT S NEXT? 1. The Supreme Court's decision in the EL Trigger test cases (BAI (Run Off) v Durham UKSC14) reinstates the practice of employers liability
Principles of European Tort Law TITLE I. Basic Norm Chapter 1. Basic Norm Art. 1:101. Basic norm (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage. (2) Damage
Williams v. University of Birmingham  EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Summary In a mesothelioma claim, the defendant was not in breach of duty in relation to exposure to asbestos for
JAMES MILLER STRESS - EMPLOYERS BEHAVING BADLY? SEPTEMBER 2002 Reynolds Porter Chamberlain Chichester House 278-282 High Holborn London WC1V 7HA Direct Tel: 020 7306 3517 Fax: 020 7242 1431 Direct Email:
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CAUSATION: MAKING SENSE OF ATHEY v. LEONATI ). These materials wer.e prepared by Brad Hunter, Pamela Kovacs and NicholasCaan of McKercher MCl(ercher&Whitmore lawfirm, Regina, Saskatchewan
August 2013 Labour & Employment Law Section Understanding How Termination and Severance Pay will be Offset Against Disability Benefits** Hugh R. Scher and Caroline Schulz The relationship between disability
Supreme Court delivers judgment in the Employers' Liability Trigger Litigation On 28th March 2012, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in BAI (Run Off) Limited v Durham  UKSC 14, the test-cases
TORTS II SPRING 2015 COURSE OUTLINE Course objectives The class will build on the knowledge of tort law gained in first year torts and will study, in the context of product liability claims, the principles
COURT FILE NO.: CV-07-0159-00B1 DATE: October 08, 2009 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 1013952 ONTARIO INC., operating as the No one attending for Plaintiff Silverado Restaurant and Nightclub
Key Concept 9: Understand the differences between compensatory and punitive damages 1 A. Torts 1. Compensatory and Punitive Damages Tort law involves civil liability between private parties. A plaintiff
South Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001 An Act to reform the law relating to contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability; to amend the
Constructive Dismissal - A balance tool for employers and employees? By Daljit Nirman Published in Ontario Bar Association (OBA) Labour Relations Section, Feb. 2004, Vol. 6, No. 3 Constructive dismissal
Index abnormality. see normality; reasonableness test absence of tests 6 7, 259 accident insurance policies 143 4 accidental shootings dangerous chattels and substances 237 8 intervening conduct of children
Negligence & Tort Law How to Prove Negligence The plaintiff needs to prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence Duty Breach of Duty Causation (two parts) Damages Duty Defined: A legal obligation
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS Federal Crown Proceedings (Remarks by Hon. B. L. Strayer) The Future/Solutions A. Tort (extracontractual civil liability) and Contract Actions by and against the Crown The
But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell
Unintentional Torts - Definitions Negligence The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person.
PROOF OF CAUSATION BY MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION BUT FOR BY ANOTHER NAME? 1. In tort the onus is on a claimant to show that the defendant's wrongdoing caused him actual damage. In a claim for personal injury
NEGLIGENCE (Heavily Tested) (Write On the Bar): In order for Plaintiff to recover in Negligence, she or he must plead and prove: DUTY, BREACH OF DUTY, ACTUAL CAUSATION, PROXIMATE CAUSATION, AND DAMAGES.
Duty of Care Kung Fu Instructor in Training Program Shaolin Guardian Network Negligence This civil wrong is most importance to all professional groups, as far as being a source of potential legal action.
Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Note: When you bind your factum, all pages (except for the cover and index) starting with your chronology, should always be on the left-hand side. The righthand
Assessing Damages Under Section 151Z: An Interaction of Schemes Andrew Parker Barrister Henry Parkes Chambers Ty Hickey Barrister State Chambers 1 Calculating damages under s 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation
HANKE V. RESURFICE CORP RECENT SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DEVELOPMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FORESEEABILITY AND CAUSATION Introduction - The decision in Hanke v. Resurfice Corp ( Resurfice ) was released on the
01 technical spandeck SPANDECK ENGINEERING V DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY This article focuses on the impact of the case of Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency
NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice. The standard of care owed by a solicitor to his client has been established for
No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,
CAUSATION IN TORT II PAPER 6.1 Causation in Medical Negligence Cases: A Perspective from British Columbia These materials were prepared by Michael G. Thomas of Harper Grey LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the Continuing
LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS The Concept of Negligence If you have been injured, only an experienced Louisiana personal injury accident attorney can evaluate the unique facts and circumstances
Covering the Field: Sport-Related Personal Injuries and Insurance Coverage By Anita G. Wandzura McKercher LLP #1 Ranked Law Firm in Saskatchewan Canadian Lawyer Magazine, October 2011 November 2011 McKercher
D EXTRACT FROM "THE LAW OF DAMAGES" (Contract and Tort/Delict) Copyright Stewart Dunn except: Extracts from cases reported in The Weekly Law Reports and The Law Reports are reproduced with the permission
S.116 Of The Courts of Justice Act Can Defendants Impose A Structured Settlement on the Plaintiff? Robert Roth Historically, at common law, a plaintiff was not obliged to accept a structured settlement,
Title: Current Construction Injury Law in California Issue: Oct Year: 2003 Current Construction Injury Law in California Morgan C. Smith Since the last issue of the Forum dedicated to construction litigation,
BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK SECOND EDITION CHARLES YC CHEW CHAPTER 8: THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE 1. Outline the elements of the tort of negligence. The elements of the tort
Australian Proportionate Liability Regime May 2014 16 NOVEMBER 2011 Curwoods Lawyers Australia Square Plaza Building Level 9, 95 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 t +61 2 9231 4166 f +61 2 9221 3720 CURWOODS
LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation
APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON A NATIONALLY CONSISTENT BASIS Implementation of the Panel's Recommendations A national response Recommendation 1 The Panel's recommendations should be incorporated
Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.
Post Employment Competition and Customer Solicitation by David W. Buchanan, Q.C. Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.687.5700 www.cwilson.com TABLE OF CONTENTS I. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS...1 II. THE FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP...2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas
Page 1 of 8 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company, 2009 BCCA 78 David Pearlman American Commerce Insurance Company, and Betsy Morrisette
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 email@example.com Schiff Hardin LLP.
3 CAUSATION AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN PRODUCT LIABILITY: AN EXPLORATION OF CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN CANADA AND SOME LESSONS FOR NIGERIA by U.D. Ikoni, Ph.D * Introduction It is trite law that for a claimant
THAT S NOT MY DOG An overview of dog liability in British Columbia by Krista Prockiw Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.643.3105 firstname.lastname@example.org www.cwilson.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...1 2. BASES FOR
Board for Physician Workforce Spotlight on National Tort Reform & Reform in the Surrounding States August 2010 Tort reform continues to be a highly debated issue at both the state and national level. In
Legal Liability in Recreation Site Management RRT 484 Professor Ed Krumpe 1 Legal Climate Sovereign immunity is basically dead. Lawsuits are part of normal operations & we cannot prevent them. Injuries
Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Limited v Sutton (6 June 2008) Introduction: Claims for accidents on building sites usually involve multiple parties. There are often contracts between the parties
Clinical Negligence by Janet C Kelly Midwifery Lecturer 1 Aim To give an insight into the concept of clinical negligence and its relation to children s nursing 2 Objectives 1. To explain the concept and
Limiting liability for professional firms Introduction Disputes can arise between providers of professional services and their clients or other (third) parties for a number of reasons. Limiting or excluding
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE UPDATE by John Walmsley 1 2 3 1. Negligence: Basics The tort of negligence has three basic requirements which must be proved by the claimant on a balance of probabilities, namely
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Michael Libby June 2007 Dolden Wallace Folick LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction The Nature of Contributory Negligence...3 Contributory Negligence Contrasted with Failure to Mitigate...3
TWO IMPORTANT CASES WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP the test of remoteness. At first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP  EWCA Civ 1146 is just another slightly dreary solicitors negligence case where
Causation in Equitable Compensation Case Comment Aleksi Ollikainen Subject: Trusts. Other related subjects: Equitable compensation. Keywords: Breach of trust, equitable compensation, trustees liability
WHAT=S THE DEAL WITH GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES? By William E. McNally and Barbara E. Cotton 1 There are times in a civil trial lawyer=s life when he or she must know the difference between general and
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 0 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of October, 200, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2005-C -249 CHARLES ALBERT AND
CANADA James SULLIVAN Blake, Cassel & Graydon LLP 595 Burrard Street P.O. Box 49314 Suite 2600, Three Bentall Centre Vancouver (C.-B.) V7X 1L3 CANADA Phone: 604-631-3300 Fax: 604-631-3309 Email: email@example.com
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.