TORT LAW EXAM

Tort law is an actionable wrong between private entitities. The plaintiff has the onus to prove the case

Battery and Assault. Batter is the intentional application of force on the body of another without their consent. Assault is a threat.

Intentional torts are Actionable per se which means harm is not a necessary element. Battery is actionable per se.

Intentional and unintentional. intentional tort is actionable per se. This is when someone does intentionally does something wrong, when they or society knows it is wrong. unintentional tort law will only find liability if they can find a blame-worthy action. Wrongfulness of conduct is based on what the defendant should have known.

Negligence is an unintetionall tort. Negligence presumes that person was careless with their actions, and by being careless, caused injury another.

1. Duty of Care 2. Standard of Care 3. Breach of Standard of Care 4. Causation 5. Damages

Common law develops through judges considering new problems and drawing on existing legal principles.

US system conception of tort law is based on LOSS SPREADING. The manufacturer is an insurer of the consumer. Canadian conception of tort law is fault-based and LOSS FIXING. This means fixing the person that did the wrong thing.

Duty of Care defendant was found liable. Prior to this case, without direct contact there could be no action.

Neighbour Maxim- you must take reasonable care not to do or omit reasonable acts that one could reasonablly forsee harming your neighbor. Found in Donaghue v. Steven, when Lord Atkin's is trying to find unifying theory to deal with causal proximity.

Palsgraph v. Long Island. Plaintiff lost at the appeal.

The plaintiff lost. There was no duty of care owed to the plaintiff, because the damage was UNFORSEEABLE. Even if someone claimed they were negligent to the man, they were not negligent to the PLAINTIFF. The dissenting opinion was that we all have right to be free from injuries. If injury occurs liability follows.

Cardozo gives the majority opinion and Andrews J. gives the dissent.

Thin-skull plaintiff rule, which means that tortfeasor must take victim as they found them. If they commit a wrong and injure someone because they are susceptible you LOSE. I In this case, it was not forseeable that the plaintiff would be susceptible to shock. It was determined that shock is not forseeable risk, so NO DUTY OF CARE & No case.

Plaintiff sued wade for negligently leaving sign. Plaintiff one in original court, LOST in appeal. VICARIOUS LIABILITY- you have done nothing wrong, but your wrong is committed through someone else.