Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

standard of care - Coggle Diagram

- - - - objective/subjective test (Heisler :red_flag:)
        
        objective: are they exercising the care to be expected from a child of like age, intelligence, and experience
        
        subjective: did they possess the necessary capabilities in their intelligence, experience, and knowledge to know the risk
      - adult activities
        
        Children who engage in adult activities, such as snowmobile driving or golf, should be given no special privileges, but should be required to live up to the standard of a reasonable adult person (Pope + Ryan :red_flag:)
      - tender years doctrine (not negligent before 7 usually)
    - - Fiola :red_flag: test: must show one of these on BOP
        
        As a result o their mental illness, they had no capacity to understand/appreciate the duty of care owed at the relevant time
        
        As a result of their mental illness, they were unable to discharge their duty of care because they had no meaningful control over their actions when such actions fell below the objective standard of care
  - - - The case of Paris :red_flag: determined that a worker suffering from a disability which would make an injury more serious than a non-disabled worker poses a special consideration when we determine the precautions taken by an employer
    - - if (probability of harm X seriousness of harm) > cost of remedial measures = unreasonable (learned hand formula Caroll :red_flag:)
      - risk/utility test for defective products (Rentway Canada :red_flag:)
      - Paris :red_flag:
    - - whether the risk is so small that someone considering the risk beforehand would not have take precautions (Bolton :red_flag:)
    - - custom (it's not enough to simply rely on the custom (Paris :red_flag:))
      - industry practice (Waldick + Brown + Warren :red_flag:)
      - statutory + regulatory standards
        
        following the law does not mean you're not negligent (Stuart v Pettie :red_flag: seatbealt)
        
        breaching statutory standard can be evidence of breaching standard but it's not determinative (Wheat Pool :red_flag:)
        
        If the purpose of the act is not what the harm involves, there can be no claim of breach of statutory standard (Gorris :red_flag:)
        
        When a statute authorizes certain activities and strictly defines the manner of precautions to be taken, it is more likely that compliance with the statute will mean reasonable care has been given (if statutory standard is stricter than CL standard then it replaces the CL standard)
        IN CONTRAST, when a statute is general/permits discretion as to the precautions, mere compliance is unlikely to exhaust the standard of care
        (Victoria :red_flag:)
    - - In cases where police or first responders are injured, they cannot be found negligent for actions which are done through prioritizing their professional duties to serve, aid, protect, etc. (ex. running on ice Bittner :red_flag:)
    - - If a party relies on legal advice, and they did not look into it and learn otherwise and they ought not to have known better, and the advice was wrong, they are not negligent in relying on the advice
        (Fullowka :red_flag:)