Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
TORT LAW - Coggle Diagram
TORT LAW
-
Duty of care: justify that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, they had to worry about them as possibly being hurt by their actions
Standard of care: the defendant breached the standard of care, standard expected by society. How would a reasonable person have acted in these circumstances? Determined by: the risk of injury inherent in the activity, existence of any social benefits flowing from the activity, extent to which others have acted similarly, existence of legislative rules
Causation: breach of the standard of care caused the plaintiff some harm. the but for test, whether there would have been no loss but for defendant’s conduct, material contribution test- conduct materially contributed to loss.
Remoteness: the plaintiff must prove that the breach of the standard of care was not too remote a cause not to merit legal liability. If this were so unforeseeable and too far out to have harmed someone, then it is too remote.
-
Winters v Haldimand case: Teen boy climbed a tree that the municipality was looking after. Boy fell off tree and claimed the negligence to maintain the tree caused harm.
-
-
-
Burden of accident prevention: what was the cost and trouble of the steps the municipality could have done to prevent this.
A public institution with a limited budget could do much more, the court said they acted like a reasonable municipality and did not breach the standard of care.
-
-
-
-
Lack of capacity:means that you cannot legally agree to contracts because of a permanent condition that affects your ability to make decisions.
-
-
-
Strict liability: the fact that something happened is enough to trigger liability, no need to prove fault or fall below the standard of care. Includes ultra dangerous activity such as trucking dynamite or dog bites.
Mcdonald’s hot coffe case: Mcds produced remarkably hot coffee. A woman was horribly burned and this was simply too hot but mcds argued that it was just fine.
Standard of care: what’s the applicable standard of care (reasonable person test). That of a reasonable fast food restaurant.
Was the standard breached? Probability of loss, what are the chances that someone would get hurt from hot coffee. How badly can someone be hurt by hot coffee? Burden of accident prevention. What could mcds have done to have prevented the accident?
The medical bills amounted to 10,000 dollars, third degree burns harmed 16% of her body.
-
Upper limit for non pecuniary damages, non monetary damages like pain and suffering.
1978 sets the upper limit as 100 thousand for the worst injury imaginable. Today that is 390 thousand. The court took a functional approach, focused on the cost of future care, not on pain and suffering or income lost. The goal is to placed back in their original position as best as money can do. The amount for in home care, Mister Andrews is a man of above average intelligence and wants to live as other human beings would and did not award him outside home care
Tort remedies:
Compensatory damages: compensate for proven/recognized losses
Nominal Damages: reflect breach of plaintiff's rights with no loss, awarded small amount of money
, unless in extreme circumstances like tresspass. invasion of privacy, libel
Punitive damage: punish for socially objectionable behavior, paid on top of compensatory damages