Presentation on theme: "Negligence and Unintentional Torts. Weird Tort Claims - Page 365 Do any of these claims have merit? What kind of injury did the plaintiff(s) suffer? How."— Presentation transcript:
Negligence and Unintentional Torts
Weird Tort Claims - Page 365 Do any of these claims have merit? What kind of injury did the plaintiff(s) suffer? How should they be compensated for their loss or injury?
Definitions Tort: harm caused to a person or property Unintentional Tort: injuries caused by an accident or an action that was not intended to cause harm Negligence: most common type of unintentional tort; careless conduct that causes forseeable harm to someone else. (Page 366)
Factors in Negligence Action If the answer to the question is “no” at any stage of the process, the action will not proceed STAGE ONE -Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care ? STAGE TWO -Did the defendant fail to provide the plaintiff with the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation? STAGE THREE - Did the defendant’s actions cause the plaintiff’s injuries?
The doors on the bus… You are running to catch a bus just as its doors as closing. You bang on the door. The driver opens the door to let you in, and in doing so knocks the bag of groceries out of you hand. A large bottle of pop you are carrying smashes on the ground, seriously injuring the little boy standing behind you. His family sues the bus driver for negligence. Is the bus driver guilty of negligence?
Duty of Care The obligation to foresee and avoid careless actions that might cause others harm (eg. Hitting golf balls)
Neighbour Principle Everyone owes a duty of care not to harm his/her neighbour be being careless or negligent Your “neighbour” is defined as anyone who you can reasonably forsee being injured by your actions. (Bike on sidewalk) Forseeability: being aware that your actions could cause injury to someone
Sam’s Case Tom, in an extremely intoxicated state, went to a bar and was served three or four beers over a 50-minute period. After he left the bar, Tom drove his vehicle on the wrong side of the road and collided with Sam’s car, killing Sam. Sam’s wife decided to sue Tom and the bar owner over the death of her husband.
Thinking about Sam’s Case 1.Duty of Care: What duty did the defendants owe Sam? 2.Standard of Care: What would a reasonable person in the bar owner’s position do? 3.Causation: Did the defendants’ actions cause Sam’s death?