LAW2014 – TORT-NEGLIGENCE GROUP ASSIGNMENT, WORTH 20%
GIVEN WEEK 12, DUE IN CLASS WEEK 13. GROUPS OF ~3-5.
YOU MUST DO BOTH PARTS (A & B) OF THE ASSIGNMENT!!!
(HOT COFFE AND STEWART V. PETTIE)
READ EACH CASE AND COMPLETE THE TASKS AS INSTRUCTED.
PART A: HOT COFFEE!!! 10 marks.
Stella Liebeck (79 yrs old) was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when
she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck
ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window
of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped
momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck
placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid
from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into
her lap.
(Two things to note: In 1992 most cars did not have cupholders, and in 1992 it was
uncommon for restaurants to add the cream/sugar to coffee for you.)
A surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered third-degree burns to over 6%
of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and genital areas. She
was hospitalized for 8 days, during which time she underwent skin grafting,
and other medical treatments.
Liebeck initially offered to settle her claim for $20,000 (based only on the medical costs
from the accident), but McDonalds refused.
During pre-trial discoveries, McDonalds produced documents showing that more than
700 people claimed they had been burned by McDonalds coffee. Some claims involved
third-degree burns similar to Liebeck’s. These documents indicated McDonalds'
knowledge about the dangers of hot coffee.
McDonalds also said that, based on a consultant’s advice, McDonalds kept its coffee
temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius).
McDonalds says this temperature gives their coffee “optimum taste”. McDonalds
admitted that they had not evaluated the danger of coffee at this temperature. Other
restaurants sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 °F (57-60 °C).
1
Furthermore, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively
enforces a requirement that coffee be kept at 180 to 190 °F. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 °F or above, and that McDonalds
coffee is dangerous to drink because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality
assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had
no intention of reducing the temperature of its coffee.
An expert in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns testified that liquids at 180°F
will cause 3rd degree burns within 7 seconds. Other testimony showed that with a
temperature around 155°F, the extent of the burn significantly decreases. Thus, if
Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155°F, the liquid would have cooled quicker, and
given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that customers want it that
way. But, the company admitted that customers were unaware they could suffer 3 rd
degree burns from the coffee. They also said that a statement on the side of the cup was
not a "warning" but a "reminder" (since the location of the writing would not warn
customers of the hazard).
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced
to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20% at fault in the spill. The
jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages.
McDonalds appealed (of course). They won the appeal and the punitive
damages were reduced to $480,000 even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct “reckless, callous and willful”.
(By the way: An investigation done after the trial found that the
temperature of coffee at the McDonalds where Stella spilled her drink
had dropped to 158 °F.)
The parties eventually agreed to an out of court settlement which has never been
revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and
subjected to extensive media reporting.
Task: Your group – as a whole - must answer the following questions. Please be sure to put the
FULL name (as it appears on registration) of all group members on your assignment.
1. Do you agree that Stella Lieback was 20% responsible for her injury? Should she
be held more/less responsible? Why or why not? 3 marks.
2. The judge called McDonalds conduct “reckless, callous and willful.” Do you agree
with this criticism? Why or why not? 2 marks.
3. How much money do you think Stella Lieback should have been awarded?
Consider compensatory and punitive damages. Tell me why. 3 marks.
4. In your opinion, what is the significance (if any) of the fact that after the trial the
temperature of the coffee was lowered to 158°F? 2 marks.
2
PART B: STEWART V. PETTIE 10 marks.
On December 8, 1985, Gillian Stewart, her husband Keith Stewart, her brother Stuart
Pettie, and his wife Shelley Pettie went to the Stage West, a dinner theatre in Edmonton
for an evening of dinner and live theatre. Before the evening was finished tragedy had
struck. After leaving Stage West at the conclusion of the evening a minor single vehicle
accident left Gillian Stewart a quadriplegic.
Gillian Stewart and her sister-in-law, Shelley Pettie, were both employed by Dispensaries
Limited. For its 1985 Christmas party, Dispensaries Limited paid the price
of admission for its employees and their spouses and friends to attend a
performance at Stage West, a dinner theatre operated in Edmonton.
The admission price included the dinner and performance (play), but did
not include the cost of alcohol consumed.
The two sisters-in-law, with their husbands, went to the dinner theatre
together in Stuart Pettie's car, with Stuart Pettie driving. They arrived at
the dinner theatre around 6:00 p.m., and were seated by a hostess at a
table which they selected from a group of tables which had been set aside for the
approximately 60 people in the Dispensaries Limited group.
The dinner theatre was organized with a full buffet dinner to be followed at 7:45 p.m. by
a three-act play. In addition, cocktail waitresses provided table service of alcohol. The
Stewart and Pettie table was served by the same waitress all evening, and
she kept a running total of all alcohol ordered, which she then presented
at the end of the evening for payment. Waitresses would take drink
orders during dinner and before the play started, and would also take
drink orders during the two intermissions. No orders were taken while the
play was in progress.
Stuart Pettie and Keith Stewart each ordered several drinks over the
course of the evening, ordering the first drinks before dinner, and, in
addition, ordering drinks after dinner but before Act I, and then during
each of the two intermissions. Their wives, on the other hand, had no alcohol during the
entire evening. They were present at the table during the entire course of the evening,
while the drinks were ordered, served, and consumed. Gillian Stewart's testimony was
clear that she knew, at least in general terms, the amount that Stuart Pettie had to drink
during the evening.
Stuart Pettie was drinking "double" rum and cokes throughout the evening. The trial
judge found that he drank five to seven of these drinks, or 10 to 14 ounces of liquor. The
trial judge also found that despite the amount that he had to drink, Stuart Pettie
exhibited no signs of intoxication. This appearance was deceiving, however, as he was
intoxicated by the end of the evening.
3
The group left the dinner theatre around 11:00 p.m. Once out in the parking lot, they
had a discussion amongst themselves about whether or not Stuart Pettie was fit to drive,
given the fact that he had been drinking. Neither his wife, nor his sister (who
acknowledged that she knew what her brother was like when he was drunk), had any
concerns about letting Stuart Pettie drive. All four therefore got into the car and started
home, with Stuart Pettie driving, Keith Stewart in the front passenger seat, and their
spouses in the back seat.
That particular December night in Edmonton there was a frost which made the roads
unusually slippery. The trial judge found that Pettie was driving slower than the speed
limit (50 km/h in a 60 km/h zone), and also accepted the
evidence of Gillian Stewart that he was driving properly,
safely and cautiously in the circumstances. Despite his
caution, Stuart Pettie suddenly lost momentary control of
the vehicle. The car swerved to the right, hopped the
curb, and struck a light pole and noise abatement wall
which ran alongside the road. Three of the four persons in the vehicle suffered no
serious injuries. Gillian Stewart, however, who was not wearing a seat belt, was thrown
across the car, struck her head, and was rendered a quadriplegic.
The expert testimony at trial was that IF she had been wearing her seat belt (which was
not required by law in Alberta in 1985) her injuries would have been prevented.
About an hour after the accident, Stuart Pettie registered blood alcohol readings of
.190 and .200. The trial judge found that, while it is not clear what his blood alcohol
reading would have been at the time of the accident, he was, without a doubt,
intoxicated, and that his blood alcohol content would have been certainly over .1.
Task: Your group – as a whole - must answer the following questions. Please be sure to put the
FULL name of all group members on your assignment, and attach this part of the assignment to
Part A (Hot Coffee). You will be assessing LIABILITY for the Stewart v. Pettie case.
The names get confusing! Gillian (Pettie) Stewart and Stuart Pettie are brother and sister. Gillian is
married to Keith Stewart, and Stuart’s wife is Shelley (and she worked with Gillian).
Only one person got injured: Gillian. Her brother Stuart was driving, and her husband Keith was in
the front seat beside him. The two women were in the back seat.
They were at the Christmas party for the company where the two women worked (Dispensaries
Ltd.) The place where the dinner-party-theatre was held was at Stage West.
1. Do you think Dispensaries Ltd. Is liable at all? Why or why not? 2 marks
2. How much responsibility for the tragedy should go to Stage West? Why? 3 marks
3. How much responsibility for the tragedy should go to the driver, Stuart Pettie?
Why? 3 marks
4. What about Gillian? Is she contributorily liable? Why or why not? 2 marks
4
HOT COFFEE!!!
For Class Discussion
Stella Liebeck (79 yrs old) was in the passenger seat of her
grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee
in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a
Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to
her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and
attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the
lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
(Two things to note: In 1992 most cars did not have cupholders, and in 1992 it was
uncommon for restaurants to add the cream/sugar to coffee for you.)
A surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered third-degree burns to
over 6% of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and genital
areas. She was hospitalized for 8 days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting, and other medical treatments.
Liebeck offered to settle her claim for $20,000 (her medical costs from
the accident), but McDonalds refused.
During pre-trial discoveries, McDonalds produced documents
showing that more than 700 people claimed they were burned by
McDonalds coffee. Some claims involved third-degree burns similar to
Liebeck’s. These documents indicated McDonalds' knowledge about
the dangers of hot coffee.
McDonalds also said that, based on a consultant’s advice,
McDonalds kept its coffee temperature between 180 and 190
degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). McDonalds says this
temperature gives their coffee optimum taste. McDonalds admitted
that they had not evaluated the danger of coffee at this temperature.
Other restaurants sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and
coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 °F (57-60 °C).
1
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the
company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be kept at 180
to 190 °F. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food
substance served at 140 °F or above, and that McDonalds coffee is
dangerous to drink because it would burn the mouth and throat. The
quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but
testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the
temperature of its coffee.
An expert in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified
that liquids at 180°F will cause 3rd degree burns within 7 seconds.
Other testimony showed that with a temperature around 155°F, the
extent of the burn significantly decreases. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had
involved coffee at 155°F, the liquid would have
cooled quicker, and given her time to avoid a
serious burn.
McDonalds argued that consumers know coffee is
hot and that customers want it that way. But, the
company admitted that customers were unaware
they could suffer 3rd degree burns
from the coffee. They also said that
a statement on the side of the cup was not a
"warning" but a "reminder" (since the location of the
writing would not warn customers of the hazard).
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory
damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000
because the jury found Liebeck 20% at fault in the
spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages.
McDonalds appealed (of course). They won the appeal and the
punitive damages were reduced to $480,000 even though the judge
called McDonalds' conduct “reckless, callous and willful”.
(By the way: An investigation done after the trial found that the temperature of
coffee at the McDonalds where Stella spilled her drink had dropped to 158 °F.)
The parties eventually agreed to an out of court settlement which has
never been revealed to the public.
2
1. Do you agree that Stella Lieback was 20% responsible for her injury?
Should she be held more/less responsible? Why or why not?
This is all about EXPECTATIONS and DUTY OF CARE. But before I get to that… It’s
also about the facts of WHAT HAPPENED not what you wish had happened or what
someone COULD HAVE DONE. Many students say:
•
•
•
•
Stella could have asked her son to put the cream/sugar in for her
She could have asked McD to put cream/sugar in for her
She could have waited for a more secure/safe place to add the cream/sugar
Etc.
Yes, well, should also could have ordered an orange juice instead of a coffee… she
also could have stayed in bed all day and ordered a pizza! But the FACTS of whatwhere-when-how, etc. are what’s outlined in the reading. You must deal with the
facts!
STELLA
MCDONALDS
Expectation: she knew coffee was a hot Duty of care: McD KNOWS people at
beverage, but did she know HOW HOT? drive thru are in their cars and either
The answer is NO
are moving or will be moving. With that
in mind: Duty of care to ensure safety
of their products in a moving vehicle.
Did she expect that a coffee might lead McD knows what their coffee temp is.
to 3rd degree burns? NO!
They KNOW the risk (see 700
complaints)
Is there any reason for her to think that The coffee temp is in THEIR control
the McD coffee would be about 40
degrees hotter that elsewhere.
Reasonable
person:
Would
a Foreseeable: Given the 700 complaints,
reasonable person have expected the yes – this was foreseeable
coffee could
3
2. The judge called McDonalds conduct “reckless, callous and willful.” Do you
agree with this criticism? Why or why not?
Reckless: Their coffee is about 40 degrees hotter than elsewhere.
Callous: They showed total disregard to potential harms
Willful: They COULD HAVE lowered the temperature of their coffee, but they
chose not to.
3. How much money do you think Stella Lieback should have been awarded?
Consider compensatory and punitive damages. Tell me why.
Consider:
• Ongoing medical costs
• Reduced quality of life: pain to her body
• Think about daily actions and where she was burned: Imagine going to the
bathroom! Or, what about her sex life?
• For damages in this case, consider both compensatory and punitive.
4
The Law of Negligence
2
Summary of Objectives
To define tort law
To identify elements of negligence
To assess duty of care in the hospitality industry
To isolate factors that may reduce liability for
breach of duty of care
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
3
Ooops!
In the Hospitality Sector – unfortunately – you’re probably more
likely to deal with unintentional torts – accidents… oops!!! - than
with intentional torts.
Additional examples include a guest slipping on the wet floor of
your hotel lobby, a customer driving drunk after leaving your bar,
a chef in your banquet hall burning herself, a wedding guest
getting food poisoning… and so on.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
4
Elements of Negligence
The elements of negligence are
a duty of care owed by the defendant
a breach of the duty of care
an injury to the plaintiff
proximate cause between the breach
and the plaintiff’s injury
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
5
Definition of Tort
An intentional or unintentional injury (other than a
breach of contract) to the victim’s
Body – eg: broken leg, burn marks
Mind – eg: mental stress, nightmares
Property – eg: your car, your house
Pocketbook – eg: your business, your reputation
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
6
Duty of Care
Everyone has a duty to take reasonable care to
avoid causing injury to anyone to whom a duty is
owed.
The Reasonable Person Test – what would a careful,
thoughtful person in the same circumstances have
done?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
7
Duty of Care continued
Think for a minute about duty of care
here in the classroom right now…
Who owes what kind of duty of care to
whom?
Imagine if the fire alarm went off right
now & the teacher WOULD NOT LET YOU
LEAVE?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
8
Duty of Care – case #1
Question: What do customers in a “strip joint”
look at?
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/al
berta/court-of-queen-sbench/1984/06/07/edwards-v-tracy-starr-sshows-edmonton-ltd-1984-1189-ab-qb.shtml
Have a look at the case above: Edwards v
Tracy Starr’s Shows.
Do you agree with the verdict? What are
your thoughts on DUTY OF CARE in this
situation?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
9
Duty of Care – case #2
Now look at the case of Salm v Coyle 2004
Here’s the link:
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2004/2004b
csc112/2004bcsc112.html
What are your thoughts on DUTY OF CARE here?
How does this compare with what you have learned
in SMART SERVE?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
10
Purposes of Tort Law
Specifically, to restore the injured party to the
position he or she was in before the injury
In general, the primary purposes of tort law are
regulation, deterrence, compensation, dispute
resolution, education and prevention.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
11
Intentional Torts
Assault – the threat of serious unwanted touching
Battery – the act of serious unwanted touching
Please note: ASSAULT is verbal or a
threatening/intimidating motion without touching.
The
tort concept of ASSAULT differs from criminal
law & from what you see on TV shows.
Battery
is the actual hitting/touching physical
contact part of it.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
12
Intentional Torts Continued
Trespass – unlawful entry upon property
Conversion – a person without authority
wrongfully takes, retains or disposes of
the personal property of another
Here’s a link to a vacation “conversion”
scam:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101694859
And another similar vacation con:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/vanessagro
ut/2014/04/11/how-to-avoid-theinternets-hottest-scam-fake-vacationrentals/
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
13
Intentional Torts Continued
False Imprisonment – confining or detaining
someone without lawful authority
Imagine detaining a guest at your hotel because you
thought they were trying to skip out on the hotel bill… then
finding out they had already paid!
Similar scenario: Imagine detaining a diner at your Bistro
whom you thought was going to “dine & dash” but
someone had already picked up the tab!
Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering –
deliberately causing mental suffering
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
Yeah, yeah, yeah… still on
Intentional Torts
Deceit – fraudulently misleading another
Yeah, yeah, this is Champagne… 100% real
Champagne… from USA, good old authentic
American Champagne!
Intentional Interference with a Contract – urging
someone to breach a binding contract
BREACH essentially means to break the rules, break
your promise.
Example: Joe has a contract to DJ Amy’s party for
$500. Then Adam tells Joe: “Don’t play her party – DJ
at my party instead and I’ll pay you $600”.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
14
15
Defences to Intentional Torts
Consent
Self defence
Defence of property
Defence of a third person
Necessity
Legal authority
Lack of intention
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
Causation and the Burden of
Proof
A defendant will be liable for reasonably
foreseeable consequences of his or her acts.
If injury was a likely consequence of an act, it is not
necessary to know exactly how such an injury would
be caused.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
16
Pajot v Commonwealth
Holiday Inns 1978, ONT
The plaintiff guest was injured when he fell through a
poorly marked glass door. The court found that the
plaintiff had exercised reasonable care, but that the
hotel had failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent
injuries to an invitee from an unusual danger of which it
was, or ought to have been, aware.
There was an implied warranty that the premises were as
safe as the exercise of reasonable care and skill could
make them.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
17
18
Thin Skull Rule
A tortfeasor who can reasonably foresee some injury
as a consequence of his or her conduct may be
liable for more serious consequences than he or she
anticipated.
So, if I tickle you – maybe I can see some minor
possible harm – maybe tickling will accidentally
leave you with a scratch.
But, I decide the potential harm is small & I really
want to tickle you, so…
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
19
“Thin Skull” continued…
So, I go ahead and tickle your feet because it’s
funny to me & worth the (minor) “risk”.
But – WHOA!!! When I tickle you, somehow you
end up with ten broken toes! Who could have
guessed this would happen? Who knew your
bones were so fragile?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
20
Res Ipsa Loquitur
means “The thing speaks for itself”
Without negligence, injury would not normally
have occurred
The elements are
injury caused by misadventure not normally
occurring without negligence
the thing causing the injury was within the
defendant’s control
the plaintiff did nothing to provoke the
accident
the plaintiff had no prior knowledge of the
danger
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
The Pizza Example – res ipsa
loquitor
Jill takes her family out for pizza at Pablo’s Pizzeria.
The whole family gets food poisoning.
Was the FP Pablo’s fault? Did cook not wash
hands? Were the pizza ingredients properly stored?
Or, maybe everything was fine at Pablo’s and the
contamination came from Charlie’s Cheese
Wholesaler. Maybe packaging at Charlie’s Chees
was unsanitary.
Either way, Jill doesn’t care – she is so sick, her family
is so sick!
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
21
22
What next?
Discuss as a class:
Who do you think Jill would sue? Pablo’s Pizzeria or
Charlie’s Cheese Wholesale?
How might the trial unfold? How would evidence be
gathered?
What if Jill sues Pablo but it turns out that the fault was
really Charlie’s?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
23
Strict Liability
The defendant may be found strictly
liable if injury occurs even though
precautions were taken.
Jim the roofer has a pile of tiles on
the roof. They are properly stacked
and the area below has “caution”
signs. Jim acts responsibly, but still,
the tiles fall off and hit Suzy on the
head.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
24
Another example of Strict Liability
Jill is a lion tamer. The cage for her lion is good – very strong &
secure. The lock on the cage is also safe and solid. But
somehow the lion escapes and eats Bonnie’s toes.
Even though Jill did not actively do anything, and even though
she was not negligent… Bonnie still has no toes. Bonnie is really
mad and wants to sue someone! And Bonnie will most likely win
a nice settlement.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
25
Fehr v Karz Kafe Ltd. 1993, SASK
The plaintiff attempted to seat herself in the
defendant’s restaurant. The table and chairs were
jammed in a corner close to the bar, forcing her to
squeeze into her chair while pushing the others
apart. Plaintiff hit the back of her head against the
overhand of the bar structure located behind her.
The Court ruled that the combination of the bar
overhang plus the proximity of the table and chairs
to each other was an unusual danger, and that the
plaintiff had taken reasonable care in the
circumstances.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
26
Contributory Negligence
If a plaintiff is partly or solely the cause of
his or her own injury, the amount of
compensation will be reduced
accordingly.
Have a look at Repushka v Perentes
Here’s the link:
http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/19
96/1996canlii7104/1996canlii7104.html?se
archUrlHash=AAAAAQAIcmVwdXNoa2EA
AAAAAQ&resultIndex=1
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
27
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
A plaintiff who has participated in an
activity knowing that injury might result
may be said to have assumed the risk
voluntarily.
The defendant must establish that
the plaintiff knew about the risk and
understood it
the plaintiff had a choice to avoid the risk but
instead voluntarily assumed it
the defendant was not in breach of any
statutory duty from which the injuries flowed
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
28
Risky Business!
Consider the case of Crocker v Sundance Resorts
Here is the link:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988ca
nlii45/1988canlii45.html?autocompleteStr=crocker%2
0&autocompletePos=2
What is your opinion of this case?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
29
Waivers and Disclaimers
Waivers are separate contracts. One party agrees
not to try to impose liability on the other if there is an
injury.
Disclaimers are attempts by one party to unilaterally
impose on the other the terms specified in the
waiver.
NOTE: We will discuss waivers & disclaimers later in the
course!
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
30
Vicarious Liability
Employers are responsible for the torts of employees which
occur while they are performing their duties.
Example: Minh hired Ahmed to work as a bartender in her
establishment. Ahmed acts inappropriately – maybe he
overserves a customer. The customer becomes injured & Minh
can be sued too even though she was not on site when the
injury happened.
Failure to correct a problem such as incompetence of an
employee may also result in vicarious liability.
Consider drivers/delivery vans: The company & the driver
him/herself could both be sued if there is an accident.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
31
More on Vicarious Liability
So, what if an employee does something wrong
outside of his duties?
What if he/she is in uniform, but “not on the clock”?
Carlos delivers produce from 9-5 in the Toronto area.
He stays in the company van after work (without
permission) & heads down to Niagara Falls to see his
cousin. Carlos gets drunk, and while still driving the
company van, he has an accident at 9:45 pm.
The company would NOT be liable: Carlos was not
performing his job – he was actually breaking his terms of
employment (time & location… and booze). In fact, the
company might even have him arrested for stealing the
company van.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
32
Negligent Misrepresentation
If someone relies on advice or information negligently
provided by a specialist, and does so reasonably to his or
her detriment, a duty of care is breached.
Think back to the class on employment law: Imagine a new
hire lied about their experience/credentials. Imagine the new
hire is incompetent and causes you to lose business.
Informed consent or an appropriate disclaimer may
relieve the specialist of liability.
More on disclaimers later in the course.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
33
Passing Off
If a reasonable member of the public would be misled into
believing one company’s goods or services are those of
another selling a similar product, the victim may seek an
injunction and damages.
Examples: What if you think you’re buying organic fruits but
you’re not? Suppose your poultry supplier says his chickens are
“free range” but he’s lying? Imagine a distributor tells you her
products are organic, but they aren’t.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
34
Beefy Fries?
French fries are made from potatoes,
right????
Would you have any reason to think of
a French fry as NOT being vegetarian?
Would you have any reason to assume
there would be BEEF products in French
fries?
Check out this case:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mcdona
lds-settles-beef-over-fries/
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
35
Defamation
The publication of a false statement about someone
either verbally or in writing which damages their
reputation
Defences the defendant may raise are
truth of the statement
consent of the plaintiff
absolute privilege
qualified privilege
fair comment
In class #10 we will look at a case that relates to this. It’s about barfing on
a buffet. Yes, really.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
36
Injurious Falsehood
Defaming a business, a product or a property rather
than a person
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
37
Nuisance
Interference with another person’s use and
enjoyment of their land
Must be continuing and unreasonable
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
38
Occupiers Liability Legislation
Occupiers owe a duty of care to those entering on,
or in the vicinity of, their premises.
Depending on jurisdiction, there may be a
distinction between the duty owed to an invitee
and a licensee.
We will discuss OCCUPIERS LIABILITY in greater detail in
upcoming weeks.
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
Preventing Negligence Claims
Standard operating procedures
Staff training
Adherence to regulations
Record keeping
Use of waivers, disclaimers and
releases
Insurance
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
39
40
What do you think?
Do you think people should take more responsibility for
their own behaviour?
Do you think people try to use accidents as a way to get
rich? “Jackpot Justice”?
How do Canada’s tort/negligence/liability laws
compare to the laws in other countries?
Copyright © 2007 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Limited
Purchase answer to see full
attachment