INSIGHT INFORMATION: LITIGATING CATASTROPHIC DISABILITY AND DAMAGES PROVING CAUSATION HOW TO CROSS THE RUBICON. William Westeringh,

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INSIGHT INFORMATION: LITIGATING CATASTROPHIC DISABILITY AND DAMAGES PROVING CAUSATION HOW TO CROSS THE RUBICON. William Westeringh,"

Transcription

1 INSIGHT INFORMATION: LITIGATING CATASTROPHIC DISABILITY AND DAMAGES PROVING CAUSATION HOW TO CROSS THE RUBICON William Westeringh, Managing Partner-Vancouver, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP and Karen Ameyaw, Student, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Since 1990, when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Snell v. Farrell 1 ( Snell ), followed by its 1995 decision in Athey v. Leonati 2 ( Athey ), injured parties, tortfeasors whose actions caused injuries to others, and their respective insurers have watched with interest as the law relating to causation in personal injury cases, appeared to be evolving. The trend appeared to be moving toward favouring injured parties and tort-feasors seeking coverage, at the expense of insurers, both in the third party and first party context. Perhaps not surprisingly, the trend seemed to evolve from hard cases, where unless liability or coverage was found to have been established, innocent and seriously plaintiffs would be denied compensation. However, three 2007 decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada may be signalling that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. In relation to tort, the requirement that there be a link between a defendant s tortious act, and the plaintiff s resulting injury in order to affix liability on the former, is the hallmark of causation. The importance of this connection was expressed by Sopinka, J, in Snell v. Farrell, supra, when his lordship stated: Causation is an expression of the relationship that must be found to exist between the tortious act of the wrongdoer and the injury to 1 2 Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R DM_VAN/ /

2 the victim in order to justify compensation of the latter out of the pocket of the former. 3 Traditionally, the test used to establish causation has been the but for test, which places on the plaintiff the onus to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant s negligent conduct. If the plaintiff succeeded in discharging this onus, the causal connection was deemed to have been established. Traditionally, exceptions to this test were rare, limited to extreme circumstances such as those found in Cook v. Lewis 4. In that case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff has been struck and injured by a bullet negligently fired by one of two identified hunters, who apparently discharged their rifles at virtually the same time. Although the plaintiff could establish, on the balance of probability, that one of the defendants had caused his injury, he could not prove which one of the two was actually responsible. To avoid the plaintiff being denied recovery in such circumstances, the court concluded that both defendants should be found responsible, essentially reversing the onus of proof. Absence such exceptional circumstances however, the onus remained on the injured plaintiff to establish that there was a direct causal link between the injury he or she sustained and the negligent or deliberate wrongful act of an identified defendant. The significance of the decision in Snell is the court s recognition that the rigid application of the but for test, in that case in a medical malpractice suit, had the potential to deprive injured victims of relief in some instances. In particular, the court recognized that due to the complexities of proof in cases where the defendant(s) may be in a much better position to establish the cause of an injury than the plaintiff is, the traditional approach to causation might operate to deprive plaintiffs of compensation, simply because they could not prove causation even though it in fact existed. While in Snell, the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that the onus remained on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant s negligence caused or contributed to the plaintiff s injury, it also 3 4 Snell v. Farrell, supra, at page 326. Cook v. Lewis [1951] S.C.R DM_VAN/ /

3 indicated that causation did not need to be established by scientific precision, and indeed in some circumstances from very limited affirmative evidence presented by a plaintiff, an inference of causation could be drawn in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Snell seemed to signal therefore, the court was prepared to apply less onerous standards of causation in appropriate circumstances. One such less onerous standard is the material contribution which recognizes not a single necessary and sufficient cause, but numerous factors which together contributed to the result 5. The exact relationship between the but for test and the material contribution test was not clearly delineated however, and the exact meaning of material contribution, and its application, was unclear until the recent decision in Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. 6 ( Hanke ). Athey is considered the leading case for causation. The procedural history of the case involved a plaintiff seeking damages for injury and loss against two defendants after being a victim in two successive motor vehicle accidents. The Plaintiff, who had a history of back problems, suffered a disk herniation shortly after the last accident. The trial judge found that accidents were not sole cause of the plaintiff s injury and assessed the motor vehicle accidents as being 25% responsible 7. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the argument that the plaintiff was entitled to 100% of the damages from the defendants because they material contributed to the injury. The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the trial decision and endorsed the material contribution test and found the defendants 100% liable. The unanimous court declared that [i]t is a well established principle that a defendant is liable for any injuries for which the defendant s negligence is cause 8. The adoption of a lower threshold lent credence to a shift, indicated in Snell, that the courts were open to applying less rigid standards of causation. Further evidence of this flexibility is demonstrated in the principles of causation discussed in the case: Lewis Klar, Tort Law, 3d ed. (Toronto: Thomson Canada, 2003) at 396. Hanke v. Resurfice Corp., [2007] 1 S.C.R Athey v. Leonati, [1994] B.C.W.L.D (B.C.S.C. Dec. 29, 1993). Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R DM_VAN/ /

4 Causation principles discussed in Athey 9 The general, but not conclusive, test for causation is the but for test, which requires the plaintiff to show that the injury would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant (para 14) The but for test is unworkable in some circumstances, so the courts have recognized that causation is established where the defendant s negligence material contributed to the occurrence of the injury. A contributing factor is material if it falls outside the de minimus range (para 15) Causation test is not to be applied too rigidly (para 15) Although the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff, in some circumstances an inference of causation may be drawn from the evidence without positive scientific proof (para 16) Not necessary for the plaintiff to establish that the defendant s negligence was the sole cause of the injury (para 17) Defendants remain liable for all injuries caused or contributed to by their negligence (para 17) It is sufficient if the defendant s negligence was a cause of harm (para 19) The Court s inclusion of the words not conclusive and unworkable with respect to the but for test seemed to allow the uncertainty to persist on whether the but for test was the primary test. This uncertainty was resolved by Hanke. Hanke involved a plaintiff, an arena operator, who was injured in a gasoline explosion while he was preparing to operate an ice resurfacing machine. The plaintiff advanced a product liability claim against the manufacturer of an ice re-surfacing machine (Resurfice Corporation), and the distributors of that product, (LeClair Equipment Ltd.). At issue was whether the defendants were liable for design defects in the machine including failure to warn of known dangers or dangers that should have been known. 9 Athey, supra note 8, at para DM_VAN/ /

5 At trial level, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either defendant created a foreseeable risk of harm. The court stated [t]he danger that an operator would put hot water into the gasoline tank was not reasonably foreseeable and there was no duty to warn 10. The trial judge, upon finding that the evidence did not establish that the manufacturer or the distributors were at fault, dismissed the plaintiff s claim. The Court of Appeal took issue with the trial judge s causation approach. The application of the but for test by the trial judge resulted in reasoning that but for the appellant putting or leaving the hose in the gasoline tank, the explosion would not have occurred and that the [a]ppellant was solely the cause of the accident and was thus 100 per cent responsible for his injuries 11 The Court of Appeal advanced the material contribution approach and cited the principle in Athey that the but for test is unworkable in some circumstances. The court cited this approach as the more appropriate test. The Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in Hanke on February 8, 2007 and settled the uncertainty within the causation tests. The Court was definitive in stating that the basic test for determining causation remains the but for test, including situations of multiple causes. In clarifying the appropriate circumstances that the material contribution test can be applied, the court iterated two requirements: 1. It must be impossible for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant s negligence caused the plaintiff s injury using the but for test. The impossibility must be due to factors that are outside of the plaintiff s control. 2. It must be clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and the plaintiff must have suffered that form of injury. The plaintiff s injury must fall within the ambit of risk created by the defendant s breach Hanke v. Resurfice Corp., 333 A.R. 371, Hanke v. Resurfice Corp., 380 A.R. 216 at para 10 and 12, Hanke, supra note 6 para 25. DM_VAN/ /

6 Thus, the material contribution test is clearly an exception recognized in law only in special circumstances, while the but for test has been re-established as the governing test in all but exceptional cases. While Hanke does not purport to overrule Athey, it signals that exception to the but for test will be rare. Of the two examples provided by the court, where the material contribution test might be applicable, one is Cook v. Lewis, (supra). The other, applies where it is impossible to prove what a particular person in the causal chain would have done have the defendant not committed a negligent act or omission, thus breaking the but for chain of causation. Reference is made to the example where it was impossible to determine that a donor whose tainted blood infected the plaintiff, would not have given blood if the defendant had properly warned him against donating blood. As the court pointed out, in that example, the impossibility of establishing causation and the element of injury related risk created by the defendant, were central to the case. 13 While it appears that Athey continues to be a good law, to the extent it implies that the material contribution test could be used interchangeably with the but for test, reducing the burden of proof on injured plaintiff, the tone of the Hanke decision suggests otherwise, and the traditional but for test appears to have been firmly re-established as the test of causation in Canada. While the but for, and material contribution, debate was taking place in relation to tort liability, another debate was taking place in relation to first party, no fault, under insured motorist protection, and third party liability insurance. One of the features of automobile insurance is the terms of coverage and exclusions. In British Columbia, compulsory automobile insurances provided by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ( ICBC ) with the terms of coverage contained in the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and regulations. In Ontario, insurance is provided by private insurers with the terms of coverage outlined in standard policies that are approved by the government regulator and by provincial legislation. 13 Hanke, supra note 6 para 27 and 28. DM_VAN/ /

7 In British Columbia, the Insurance (Vehicle) Act Regulations, under Part 7 Accident Benefit, outlines the coverage and benefits extended to an insured, in respect of death or injury caused by an accident that arises out of the use or operation of a vehicle. 14 In jurisdictions like British Columbia where the term accident is not specifically defined, and that it is not restricted to losses following directly from the use and operation of an automobile, the courts have interpreted this section broadly. 15 In Ontario, every automobile insurance policy provides for the payment of no-fault or accident benefits by an insured person s own car insurer. These accident benefits are set out in a schedule to the Insurance Act, called the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule ( SABS ). As first party, no-fault benefits are contractual, it would not surprise most observers that courts have historically given an expansive interpretation to such policy language, favouring insureds. Until recently however, it appeared as though that the courts might be adopting the reasoning applicable to the interpretation of language in the no-fault context, and applying it to circumstances involving underinsured motorist, unidentified motorist, and even third party liability, coverage. The leading case for the interpretation of arising from the use or operation of a vehicle is Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia 16, ( Amos ). In Amos, the plaintiff was insured by a standard ICBC automobile insurance policy. While lawfully operating his vehicle in the United States, he was subjected to an unprovoked criminal attack where he was shot while in his vehicle and sustained a serious, disabling and permanent injury. The plaintiff was denied liability under the ICBC automobile insurance policy for medical and other benefits. The action sought a declaration of entitlement to those benefits Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation B.C. Reg. 447/83 O.C. 1897/83. Richard J. Bundus, Insurance Law in Canada vol. 2, (Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited, 2002), at Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [1995] 3 S.C.R DM_VAN/ /

8 At the trial level, at issue was whether the accident, [arose] out of the ownership, use or operation of a vehicle as stipulated in s. 79(1). Hardinge, J. applied principles derived from leading S.C.C. cases of the day, Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Stevenson 17, and Law Union & Rock Insurance Co. v. Moore s Taxi Ltd. 18, that stated the test for ownership, use or operation were the purpose and causation tests. The tests had the following requirements: First, both the purpose test and the chain of causation test must be satisfied before injuries caused by an accident can be said to have arisen out of the ownership, use or operation of a motor vehicle. Second, even if anything more than a minimal connection between the ownership, use or operation of a vehicle and accidental injuries is sufficient to establish the required nexus, mere presence in a vehicle when injuries are sustained is not sufficient. 19 The trial judge found that the injuries did not arise from the accident and the vehicle was merely the situs of the attack 20. The unanimous Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge s interpretation of s. 79(1) and found that there was a requirement for a causal connection between the accident and the ownership, use or operation of the vehicle. 21 The court opined: In my view, it is not sufficient that the accident happens while the injured party is using or operating the vehicle. Nor is it sufficient that the injured party simply happens to be in the vehicle at the time the accident occurs if the accident bears no reasonable relationship to the ownership, use or operation of the vehicle. The Supreme Court of Canada considered three issues on appeal: 1. Did the BCCA err in adopting a causal connection test in interpreting s. 79(1); Reliance Petroleum Ltd. V. Stevenson, [1956] S.C.R Law Union & Rock Insurance Co. v. Moores Taxi Ltd., [1960] S.C.R. 80. Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1993] B.C.J. No Amos, supra note 15 at para 10. Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 113 D.L.R. (4 th ) 269 page 274. DM_VAN/ /

9 2. In any event, did a causal connection exist between the accident and the ownership, use or operation, of Mr. Amos vehicle within the meaning of s. 79(1); and 3. Did the BCCA err in holding that Mr. Amos van was merely the situs of a shooting and not causally connected to his injuries. 22 Major, J. noted that the no-fault character of the benefits in question did not change the interpretation of s. 79(1), but noted that traditionally the provisions providing coverage in private insurance policies had been interpreted broadly in favour of the insured, while exclusions were interpreted strictly and narrowly against the insurer. Accordingly, while his lordship concluded that s. 79(1) should not be stretched beyond its plain and ordinary meaning, at the same time, it ought not be given a technical construction that defeated its object and the intent of the legislation providing coverage. His lordship therefore proposed a two-part test to be applied to interpreting this section as follows: 1. Did the accident result from the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put? 2. Is there some nexus or causal relationship (not necessarily a direct or proximate causal relationship) between the appellant s injuries and the ownership, use or operation of his vehicle, or is the connection between the injuries and the ownership, use or operation of the vehicle merely incidental or fortuitous? 23 The court found the purpose test was satisfied as the plaintiff s accident resulted from the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put. The court found that the causal test required a more liberal interpretation because the term arising out of is broader than caused by 24. Major, J. used the broader interpretation to find: 22 Amos, supra note 16 at page Amos, supra note 16 at page Amos, supra note 16 at page 417. DM_VAN/ /

10 [A] motor vehicle need not be the instrument of the injury to satisfy the causal connection requirement. Injuries which do not arise from the negligent use of a motor vehicle may be covered by s. 79(1) 25 Major, J. found that the injuries originated from, flowed from, or were causally connected with its ownership, use and operation 26. Thus, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the no-fault benefits to compensate him for the injuries suffered as a result of the accident. It is important to note although he interpreted s. 79(1) broadly, and in a manner favourable to Mr. Amos, Major, J. did recognize the necessity of a causal connection between Mr. Amos injuries and the ownership, use or operation of his vehicle. His lordship indicated that a true random shooting, not related to the use or operation of a vehicle would not be covered under s. 79(1), but where a nexus or connection between the injuries and the vehicle exist, the injured plaintiff, such as Mr. Amos, was entitled to coverage. An important factor was that the ownership, use or operation of the vehicle in question, related to Mr. Amos vehicle and his ownership, use or operation thereof. The issue of causation therefore related to an injury sustained by Mr. Amos while he was the owner, user, or operator, of his own vehicle. While the Amos decision has been widely applied in other Canadian cases involving first party no-fault benefits, until the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decisions in Vytlingam v. Citadel General Assurance Co. 27 ( Vytlingam ) and Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 28 ( Herbison ) on Friday, October 19, 2007, it appears as though the decision in Amos might be applied to circumstances involving third party liability coverage and underinsured motorist protection coverage, broadening such coverage significantly. In Vytlingam, the plaintiff was driving an automobile in North Carolina that was struck by a boulder, which went through the windshield and/or roof of his vehicle and injured him Amos, supra note 16 at page 419. Amos, supra note 16 at page 420. Vytlingam v. Citadel General Assurance Co., 2007 S.C.C. 46. Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co S.C.C. 47. DM_VAN/ /

11 catastrophically. The defendant deliberately threw the boulder which struck the plaintiff s vehicle. The defendant s vehicle transported the boulder to the bridge and was used as he fled the scene. At the trial level, relying on provisions for benefits from inadequately insured motorists, the plaintiff argued that he was entitled to benefits because the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile used by the defendant. Backhouse, J. applied the two part Amos test and found that the purpose test was met because the vehicle transporting the boulder was central to the escape, required to transport them to the scene and necessary to transport the boulder 29. The court found that the purpose test was satisfied because transporting goods is an ordinary and common use of a motor vehicle. Thus, the defendants act of transporting the boulder in his vehicle was found to be within this meaning. The court found that causation was met because the use or operation of the vehicle was not merely incidental or fortuitous 30. Quoting from Amos that the motor vehicle need not be the instrument of the injury to satisfy the causal connection, Blackhouse, J. concluded: Its use was central to the defendants entire plan. It was necessary for their transportation to the scene, essential to carry the boulders, and the means for their escape. 31 A split occurred at the Court of Appeal on the issue of the Amos test and use or operation of the vehicle directly or indirectly. The majority of the court agreed with the lower court that the injuries to Michael Vytlingam arose either directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the defendant s vehicle. The dissenting judge, Juriansz, J.A. also applied the Amos test but came to different conclusions. He disagree with the trial judge s finding that the purpose test was met because, in his view, this Vytlingam (Litigation Guardian of) v. Farmer, 2004, 23 C.C.L.I. (4 th ) 267, at para 23. Vytlingam, supra, note 29 at 26. Vytlingam, supra, note 29 at 26. DM_VAN/ /

12 characterization applied only to the first part of the defendants course of activity, taking the boulders to the overpass. However, according to Juriansz, J.A., when the defendant dropped the boulder from which the plaintiff s injuries resulted, he was no longer using the vehicle to transport anything and accordingly the plaintiff s injuries could not be said to result from the ordinary and wide known activities to which vehicles are applied. With regard to causation, Juriansz, J.A. noted that Major, J. in Amos observed that a nexus or causal link was necessary between the cause of the injury and the ownership, use or operation of the vehicle. His lordship noted that Major, J. was unequivocal that a truly random shooting would not have been covered, but rather that an additional link was required to causally connect the bullet to the automobile s use. He criticized the trial judge s use of the but for test due to its potential to identify a relationship that may be incidental or fortuitous. Juriansz, J.A. concluded that the chain of causation was broken and that the act causing the injuries, the dropping of the boulder from the overpass, was unconnected to the use or operation of the vehicle. On October 19, 2007, Binnie, J., writing for the Supreme Court of Canada, allowed the appeal. The court noted that the question was whether the tort that caused the plaintiff s injuries was sufficiently connected to the use and operation of the defendant s vehicle, for it to be considered a claim based on a tort committed by a motorist. 32 Binnie, J. noted that the applicable Ontario coverage requires there to be liability on the part of the tort-feasor, as a motorist, who is inadequately insured. The primary issue therefore was whether the defendant, who dropped the boulder on the plaintiff s vehicle, was a motorist when he did so. 33 Binnie, J. noted that Amos was concerned with no-fault statutory benefits where the focus was necessarily on the use and operation of the claimant s vehicle. In contrast, in Vytlingam the focus was on the use of the tort-feasor s vehicle with the question being: Vytlingam, supra, note 27 para 4. Vytlingam, supra, note 27 para 5. DM_VAN/ /

13 1. Whether the Vytlingam s claim is in respect of an inadequately insured tort-feasor whose fault occurred in the course of using a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle; and 2. Whether the chain of causation linking the claimed loss or injuries to the use and operation of the motor vehicle, which is shown to be more than simply fortuitous or but for is unbroken. 34 Binnie, J. noted that in Vytlingam there was no doubt that the claimant was entitled to the nofault benefits accompanying his policy. However, he adopted Juriansz, J.A. s reasoning in dissent, concluding that, for underinsured motorist coverage to exist, there must be an unbroken chain of causation linking the conduct of the motorist, in his or her capacity as a motorist, to the injuries in respect of which the claim is made. 35 The court concluded that the liability in the present case came from dropping rocks, and that it was irrelevant that the vehicle had been previously used to move the rocks to the site where the wrongful act occurred. Binnie, J. agreed with Juriansz, J.A. that the rock throwing was an independent act which broke the chain of causation. The Vytlingam decision is also important because it specifically confirms that Amos remains good law in relation to the interpretation of first party, no-fault benefit policies. 36 Interestingly, Vytlingam also supports the proposition that Chan v. ICBC [1996] 4 WWR 734 (BCCA) was wrongly decided, even though leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in that case was refused. In Chan, the plaintiff was injured while a passenger in her boyfriend s vehicle. An unidentified motorist, in an approaching vehicle, threw a brick at the plaintiff s vehicle, striking and injuring her. In awarding the plaintiff unidentified vehicle indemnification insurance benefits the BCCA agreed with the trial judge s conclusion that the throwing of the brick could not be isolated from the assailants driving the vehicle along the highway. In Vytlingam, supra, note 27 para 12. Vytlingam, supra, note 27 para 25. Vytlingam, supra, note 27 para 15. DM_VAN/ /

14 Vytlingam however, Binnie, J. disagrees, pointing out that if the BCCA had focused its analysis of the tort that caused the injury, and he opined that it should have, the fact that the brick was thrown from a car does not make it a motoring activity, rather it was an intervening act. According to Binnie, J. neither in Chan nor in Vytlingam was the tort-feasor at fault as a motorist, and accordingly neither applicable insurance the policy was required to respond. 37 On the same day that the S.C.C. rendered its reasons in Vytlingam, it also handed down reasons for judgment in Herbison v. Lumbermen Mutual Casualty Co. 38 ( Herbison ). In this case the plaintiff was claiming against the defendant s third party liability policy. In Herbison, the plaintiff, a member of a deer hunting party, was shot in the leg by the defendant Wolfe, who mistook him for a deer. Mr. Wolfe, operating a 4 wheel drive truck in the dark, was using the truck to get to the hunting stand when he stopped the vehicle to shoot at what he mistakenly thought was a deer. Mr. Wolfe argued that due to poor physical condition, poor heart and the inability to walk to the shooting stand, he relied on his truck. He also argued that the illumination from the headlights allowed him to see the shadow that he thought was a deer. The plaintiff successfully brought an action against Mr. Wolfe and sought through Mr. Wolfe s insurer, recovery for judgment pursuant to provisions for indemnity for loss or damages arising from the ownership or, directly or indirectly, from the use or operation of his motor vehicle. At the trial level, Manton, J. found the purpose test failed because the accident resulted from the negligent handling of a hunting rifle something totally unrelated to this use of the truck 39. Despite arguments that it fell within the ordinary purpose of the vehicle, Manton, J. found at the time the shot was fired resulting in the accident, the vehicle was not being put to ordinary use. On the issue of causation, the trial judge found that the negligent shooting by Wolfe constituted an intervening act that was merely incidental to the use and operation of the vehicle. In Vytlingam, supra, note 27 para 31. Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 2007 SCC 247. Herbison, 2003 Carswell Ont [2003] O.J. No. 3024, 2 CCLI (4 th ) 44 Ont. S.C.J. DM_VAN/ /

15 dismissing the arguments of a causal link, the trial judge concluded that [a]lthough the causation requirement of the Act was broadened by the inclusion of the word indirect as was said in Hanlon The test in Amos is broad, but it is not without limits 40. The trial judge concluded that the use and operation of the vehicle did not contribute to the injuries sustained by the victim. In the Ontario Court of Appeal all of the judges offered their reasons but split in favour of finding that the accident arose from the ordinary use or operation of the vehicle. Cronk, J.A. would have affirmed the trial decision, finding that the trial judge did not err in the application of the Amos to dismiss the claim. Cronk, J.A. found that Mr. Wolfe s use or operation of his pickup truck was not connected to his negligent use of his rifle or contributed to Mr. Herbison s injuries. Cronk, J.A. found that the use of the truck to transport the Wolfes to their hunting station was interrupted, and suspended by a series of separate intervening and deliberate acts and operation of his truck was merely incidental or ancillary to his unrelated negligent discharge of is weapon 41. In contrast, Borins, J.A. and Feldman, J.A. found that the trial judge erred in the application of the Amos test. The judges found that the purpose test was met on the basis that it was used: to gain access by a disabled person to difficult terrain and to transport that person, who was a deer hunter, and his hunting equipment to his hunting stand and the use of the truck s headlights to illuminate the darkness are well-known uses of pickup trucks, and its operation was an integral part of the venture in which the person was engaged. 42 The judges further found that causation was not an element of the provision under examination, and the requirement was that the damages arise directly or indirectly out of, or originate from, Herbison, supra, note 39 at para 22. Herbison, 255 DLR (4 th ) 75 Ont. C.A. para 78. Herbison, supra, note 41 at para 113. DM_VAN/ /

16 the use or operation of a vehicle 43. The judges concluded that the causation test was met because the evidence established some nexus or causal relationship between Mr. Herbison s damages and Mr. Wolfe s use or operation of his truck that was more than merely incidental or fortuitous. 44 Binnie, J. writing for all of his colleagues on the Supreme Court of Canada, allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting Ontario Court of Appeal opinion of Cronk, J.A. His lordship observed that the questions for the court to decide were firstly whether Mr. Herbison s claim related to a tort committed while Mr. Wolfe was using his truck, as a motor vehicle rather than for some other purposes, and secondly whether there was an unbroken chain of causation linking Mr. Herbison s injuries to the use and operation of the Wolfe vehicle which is more than simply fortuitous. 45 Binnie, J. accepted that the first question could easily be answered in the affirmative as Mr. Wolfe was using his truck for transportation, a usual and ordinary use of a vehicle. In relation to the second question, causation, Binnie, J. concluded that the claimant Mr. Herbison faced an insurmountable obstacle. Binnie, J. pointed out that Mr. Herbison s complaint regarding Mr. Wolfe s conduct, related to the shooting resulting in him being hit by a bullet, not Mr. Wolfe s use and operation of his vehicle. 46 Binnie, J. concluded that the real source of Mr. Wolfe s liability, negligently discharging a firearm, was a tort independent of the use and operation of the Wolfe vehicle. 47 As he did in Vytlingam, Binnie, J. noted that Amos involved the interpretation of no fault benefits and although the policy language in Amos and Herbison was similar, the fact that the latter was Herbison, supra, note 41 at para 114. Herbison, supra, note 41 at para 116. Herbison, supra, note 38 at para 12. Herbison, supra, note 38 at para 12. Herbison, supra, note 38 at para 14. DM_VAN/ /

17 not concerned with no fault benefits, but rather indemnity insurance, meant that some causal link must exist, and must constitute an unbroken chain, something not established in the Herbison case. As a result, Mr. Herbison s claim for insurance proceeds against Mr. Wolfe s third party liability policy, could not succeed. Conclusion In relation to tort actions, the but for test has been firmly re-established as the primary test for causation. The material contribution test is to be applied in only a narrow range of exceptional circumstances. Amos s relaxed causation test, continues to apply to claims for no-fault benefits under first party motor vehicle policies. In relation to claims that involve third party, unidentified motorist, or under insured motorist coverages, where it is the tort-feasor s relationship to his or her vehicle which will determine coverage, a causal connection must exist between the alleged tortious conduct and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff which causal connection must be an unbroken chain. An independent intervening act which breaks this chain of causation will result in coverage being denied. DM_VAN/ /

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. Resurfice Corp. Appellant and Ralph Robert Hanke Respondent

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. Resurfice Corp. Appellant and Ralph Robert Hanke Respondent SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 DATE: 20070208 DOCKET: 31271 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Resurfice Corp. Appellant and Ralph Robert Hanke Respondent LeClair Equipment Ltd.

More information

A PLEA FOR COHERENCE: MAKING SENSE OF FACTUAL CAUSE

A PLEA FOR COHERENCE: MAKING SENSE OF FACTUAL CAUSE A PLEA FOR COHERENCE: MAKING SENSE OF FACTUAL CAUSE David Cheifetz Faculty of Law, University of Oxford June 2017 The components of the cause of action Duty of Care Breach/Standard of Care Damage Cause-in-Fact

More information

THE RESURFICE EXCEPTION. Causation in Negligence Without Probability

THE RESURFICE EXCEPTION. Causation in Negligence Without Probability THE RESURFICE EXCEPTION Causation in Negligence Without Probability by David Cheifetz A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Laws Graduate Department of the

More information

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained

More information

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF

More information

HURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES

HURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES Posted on: January 1, 2011 HURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES One of the most significant challenges we face as personal injury lawyers is proving chronic pain in cases where there is no physical

More information

2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720

2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario

More information

California Bar Examination

California Bar Examination California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Autos, Inc. manufactures a two-seater

More information

THE LAW PROFESSOR TORT LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #3 MODEL ANSWER

THE LAW PROFESSOR TORT LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #3 MODEL ANSWER THE LAW PROFESSOR TORT LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #3 MODEL ANSWER Carol stopped her car at the entrance to her office building to get some papers from her office. She left her car unlocked and left

More information

Question 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?

Question 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us? Question 1 Twelve-year-old Charlie was riding on his small, motorized 3-wheeled all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) in his family s large front yard. Suddenly, finding the steering wheel stuck in place, Charlie

More information

Question 1. On what theory or theories might damages be recovered, and what defenses might reasonably be raised in actions by:

Question 1. On what theory or theories might damages be recovered, and what defenses might reasonably be raised in actions by: Question 1 A state statute requires motorcyclists to wear a safety helmet while riding, and is enforced by means of citations and fines. Having mislaid his helmet, Adam jumped on his motorcycle without

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARSHA PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 12, 2005 v No. 250418 Wayne Circuit Court STC, INC., d/b/a MCDONALD S and STATE LC No. 02-229289-NO FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

More information

Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation)

Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) May 2013 Municipal Law Section Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) By Scott McAnsh Antrim Truck Stop is located just off Highway

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS E & L TRANSPORT COMPANY, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 25, 2002 v No. 229628 Calhoun Circuit Court WARNER ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, 1 LC No. 99-003901-NF and

More information

Week 2 - Damages in Contract. The plaintiff simply needs to show that there was a breach of contract

Week 2 - Damages in Contract. The plaintiff simply needs to show that there was a breach of contract Week 2 - Damages in Contract In order for the court to award the plaintiff compensatory damages in contract, it must find that: a) Does the plaintiff have a cause of action in contract (e.g breach of contract)?

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SHARI RATERINK and MARY RATERINK, Copersonal Representatives of the ESTATE OF SHARON RATERINK, UNPUBLISHED May 3, 2011 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v No. 295084

More information

COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN

COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,

More information

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND)

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) Brad W. Dixon BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Introduction British Columbia courts continue to grapple with efforts by plaintiffs

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JEANNIE L. COLLINS, Personal Representative of the Estate of RICHARD E. COLLINS, Deceased, and KIRBY TOTTINGHAM, UNPUBLISHED March 22, 2005 Plaintiffs-Appellants, V No.

More information

failing to get the contract signed (something that never ceases to amaze lawyers!);

failing to get the contract signed (something that never ceases to amaze lawyers!); Professionals involved in design-build projects should be aware of the risks they face when they contract with the owner to be solely responsible for both construction and design. In this respect, the

More information

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

More information

Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims

Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims July 2011 page 72 Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims By SIMONE HERBERT-LOWE Simone Herbert-Lowe is a senior claims solicitor with LawCover and is an Accredited Specialist in

More information

Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000

Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015

More information

Torts. Louisiana Law Review. William E. Crawford Louisiana State University Law Center

Torts. Louisiana Law Review. William E. Crawford Louisiana State University Law Center Louisiana Law Review Volume 47 Number 2 Developments in the Law, 1985-1986 - Part I November 1986 Torts William E. Crawford Louisiana State University Law Center Repository Citation William E. Crawford,

More information

NO. COA14-94 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 September Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 2 August 2013 by

NO. COA14-94 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 September Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 2 August 2013 by NO. COA14-94 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 September 2014 KAYLA J. INMAN v. Columbus County No. 12 CVS 561 CITY OF WHITEVILLE, a municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of North

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 1, 2010 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION August 31, 2010 9:10 a.m. v No. 288452 Wayne Circuit

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ July

More information

A summary of Injurious Affection

A summary of Injurious Affection A summary of Injurious Affection Where no land of the claimant is expropriated By Devesh Gupta 30 March 2011 For the Ontario Expropriation Association Introduction The Ontario Expropriations Act 1 ( OEA

More information

LAW REVIEW JUNE 1989 PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION QUESTIONED IN EYE INJURY CASES

LAW REVIEW JUNE 1989 PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION QUESTIONED IN EYE INJURY CASES PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION QUESTIONED IN EYE INJURY CASES James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1989 James C. Kozlowski This month's column presents two court decisions which examine various aspects of playground

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLANT IRVINE VAN SAM MASHONGWA RESPONDENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLANT IRVINE VAN SAM MASHONGWA RESPONDENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No.: 966/2013 Reportable In the matter between PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLANT and IRVINE VAN SAM MASHONGWA RESPONDENT Neutral

More information

Advocacy. Tel: (604) Office: Granville Street, Vancouver BC CLASS SCHEDULE

Advocacy. Tel: (604) Office: Granville Street, Vancouver BC CLASS SCHEDULE Law 435C.001 Professor MARC KAZIMIRSKI & PAULINE GARDIKIOTIS Personal Injury Advocacy Tel: (604) 681-9344 Email: mak@kazlaw.ca Office: 1400-570 Granville Street, Vancouver BC CLASS SCHEDULE 2015 Term 2

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.

More information

CED: An Overview of the Law

CED: An Overview of the Law Torts BY: Edwin Durbin, B.Comm., LL.B., LL.M. of the Ontario Bar Part II Principles of Liability Click HERE to access the CED and the Canadian Abridgment titles for this excerpt on Westlaw Canada II.1.(a):

More information

Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW

Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ELLIOT RUTHERFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2017 v No. 329041 Wayne Circuit Court GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 15-006554-NF also known

More information

TORT LAW. Third Edition. Lewis N. Klar, Q.C. B.A., B.C.L., LL.M. Professor of Law University of Alberta THOMSON - ^ CARSWELL

TORT LAW. Third Edition. Lewis N. Klar, Q.C. B.A., B.C.L., LL.M. Professor of Law University of Alberta THOMSON - ^ CARSWELL TORT LAW Third Edition Lewis N. Klar, Q.C. B.A., B.C.L., LL.M. Professor of Law University of Alberta THOMSON - ^ CARSWELL TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Table ofcases v xix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO TORT LÄW

More information

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Lombardi 2013 NY Slip Op 32476(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22338/2012 Judge:

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Lombardi 2013 NY Slip Op 32476(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22338/2012 Judge: Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Lombardi 2013 NY Slip Op 32476(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22338/2012 Judge: Sidney F. Strauss Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS

More information

Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.

Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. SHERMAN DREHER, ET AL. v. Record No. 052508 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER September 15, 2006 BUDGET RENT-A-CAR

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair HEARING: June 17, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT

More information

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party CITATION: Ozerdinc Family Trust et al v Gowling et al, 2017 ONSC 6 COURT FILE NO.: 13-57421 A1 DATE: 2017/01/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Ozerdinc Family Trust, Muharrem Ersin Ozerdinc,

More information

Question Farmer Jones? Discuss. 3. Big Food? Discuss. -36-

Question Farmer Jones? Discuss. 3. Big Food? Discuss. -36- Question 4 Grain Co. purchases grain from farmers each fall to resell as seed grain to other farmers for spring planting. Because of problems presented by parasites which attack and eat seed grain that

More information

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter 2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent

More information

Caine Fur Farms Ltd. V. Kokolsky, [1963] S.C.R. 315

Caine Fur Farms Ltd. V. Kokolsky, [1963] S.C.R. 315 Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 2 (April 1965) Article 44 Caine Fur Farms Ltd. V. Kokolsky, [1963] S.C.R. 315 B. I. M. A. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj

More information

Divide & Conquer: Strategies for Indivisible Injuries. Russell J. Bailey, Alex D. Kask, Julia S. Lauwers

Divide & Conquer: Strategies for Indivisible Injuries. Russell J. Bailey, Alex D. Kask, Julia S. Lauwers Divide & Conquer: Strategies for Indivisible Injuries Russell J. Bailey, Alex D. Kask, Julia S. Lauwers WHAT IS INDIVISIBILITY? The analysis is necessary when there are 2 or more tortious acts causing

More information

Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties.

Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties. Civil Disputes Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties. The main purpose of Civil Law is to compensate victims. Civil

More information

California Bar Examination

California Bar Examination California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Manufacturer designed and manufactured

More information

1% LIABILITY: FACT OR FICTION OF APPORTIONMENT IN TORT LAW? R. Lee Akazaki*

1% LIABILITY: FACT OR FICTION OF APPORTIONMENT IN TORT LAW? R. Lee Akazaki* 1% LIABILITY: FACT OR FICTION OF APPORTIONMENT IN TORT LAW? R. Lee Akazaki* What does 1% liability look like? The question is important for judges who have to recognize the animal if it happens to appear

More information

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment 1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose

More information

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. prepared for a conference on the Impact of the Haida and Taku River Decisions presented by the Pacific Business and

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 21, 2017 v No. 329907 Kent Circuit Court FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, LC No. 15-000926-AV Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Claims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary

Claims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary Claims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary By Lisa A. Peters May 25, 2007 This is a general overview of the subject matter and should not be relied upon as legal advice or opinion. For specific

More information

MAY 1996 LAW REVIEW LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL ASSAULTS IN PARK FACILITIES

MAY 1996 LAW REVIEW LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL ASSAULTS IN PARK FACILITIES LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL ASSAULTS IN PARK FACILITIES James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1996 James C. Kozlowski Organizations and communities considering providing areas in which physical activity can

More information

What s news in construction law 16 June 2006

What s news in construction law 16 June 2006 2 What s news in construction law 16 June 2006 Warranties & indemnities the lessons from Ellington & Tempo services For as long as contracts have existed, issues have arisen in relation to provisions involving

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2016 v No. 323755 Wayne Circuit Court ROSEMARY KING, DERRICK ROE, JOHN LC No. 13-003902-NI DOE, and ALLSTATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002 LANA MARLER, ET AL. v. BOBBY E. SCOGGINS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rhea County No. 18471 Buddy D. Perry, Judge

More information

ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS ROUNDUP LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT VIA THE INTERNET ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP APRIL 20, 2011 From time-to-time

More information

Anne P. Zebrowski Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. David J. Hatem PC Donovan Hatem LLP

Anne P. Zebrowski Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. David J. Hatem PC Donovan Hatem LLP The Battle of the Bollards Anne P. Zebrowski Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. David J. Hatem PC Donovan Hatem LLP Learning Objectives Examine the duties that can be imposed through a contractual service scope

More information

PRODUCT LIABILITY IN CANADA 101

PRODUCT LIABILITY IN CANADA 101 CLE BRITISH COLUMBIA PRODUCT LIABILITY 2017 PRODUCT LIABILITY IN CANADA 101 November 8, 2017 Michael Parrish Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP - 2 - A. Introduction Product liability law in British Columbia

More information

Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract

Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract Honest Performance and Absolutely Everything Else By Ryan P. Krushelnitzky and Sandra L. Corbett QC Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract Bhasin and Sattva represent important changes and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION

More information

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER. Michael J. Talbot, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.21 l(e)(2), orders:

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER. Michael J. Talbot, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.21 l(e)(2), orders: Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER Michael J. Talbot, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.21 l(e)(2), orders: The opinions in the following appeals are hereby AMENDED to correct a clerical error in

More information

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE. RAYMOND DAVIS v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE. RAYMOND DAVIS v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE RAYMOND DAVIS v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. C11-409, James E. Walton, Judge No. M1999-00084-COA-R3-CV

More information

CPI Antitrust Chronicle December 2013 (1)

CPI Antitrust Chronicle December 2013 (1) CPI Antitrust Chronicle December 2013 (1) Green Light For Indirect Purchaser Claims in Canada Mark Katz & Chantelle Spagnola Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP www.competitionpolicyinternational.com Competition

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BARRY C. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION December 4, 2012 9:05 a.m. v No. 307458 Ingham Circuit Court HOME OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 09-001584-NF Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH M. MAUER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of KRISTIANA LEIGH MAUER, MINDE M. MAUER, CARL MAUER, and CORY MAUER, UNPUBLISHED April 7,

More information

Trial And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: Civil Practice After Kincy v. Petro

Trial And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: Civil Practice After Kincy v. Petro Trial And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: Civil Practice After Kincy v. Petro By JACOB C. LEHMAN,* Philadelphia County Member of the Pennsylvania Bar INTRODUCTION....................... 75 RULE OF CIVIL

More information

TORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD

TORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO NELIGENCE 7 DUTY OF CARE 8 INTRODUCTION 8 ELEMENTS 10 Reasonable foreseeability of the class of plaintiffs 10 Reasonable foreseeability not alone sufficient

More information

Product Liability 101

Product Liability 101 PRODUCT LIABILITY 2017 PAPER 1.1 Product Liability 101 If you enjoyed this Practice Point, you can access all CLEBC course materials by subscribing to the Online Course Materials Library These materials

More information

Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.

Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No. Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1414 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 844 49 C.P.C. (6th) 311 2007 CarswellOnt 2191

More information

CALIFORNIA ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW

CALIFORNIA ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW CALIFORNIA ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION A. Bar Exam Basics Editor's Note 1: The Professor refers to specific page numbers throughout

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: 16-68322/19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOMBE and

More information

Maryland tort lawyers may need to re-think their understanding of

Maryland tort lawyers may need to re-think their understanding of 4 Maryland Bar Journal September 2014 The Evolution of Pro Rata Contribution and Apportionment Among Joint Tort-Feasors By M. Natalie McSherry Maryland tort lawyers may need to re-think their understanding

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2003 ONWSIAT 1955 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 234/03 [1] This right to sue application was heard in London on February 4, 2003, by Vice-Chair M. Kenny. THE RIGHT TO SUE

More information

Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines

Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Page 1 Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Between Dr. George Beiko, Dr. Lawrence Aedy, Dr. Bruce Lennox and Dr. Gerald Scaife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, and Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines,

More information

Introduction. A Brief Primer

Introduction. A Brief Primer Recent Developments in Canadian Class Actions Brad W. Dixon Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 1200 200 Burrard Street Vancouver, British Columbia V7X 1T2 604.640.411 604.622.5811 bdixon@blg.com Brad Dixon is a

More information

Chapter 2: Negligence: The Duty of Care General Principles and Public Policy

Chapter 2: Negligence: The Duty of Care General Principles and Public Policy Chapter 2: Negligence: The Duty of Care General Principles and Public Policy Outline 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] 2.3 The three-stage test: foreseeability, proximity and fair, just

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM LUCKETT IV, a Minor, by his Next Friends, BEVERLY LUCKETT and WILLIAM LUCKETT, UNPUBLISHED March 25, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 313280 Macomb Circuit Court

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 [2006] S.C.J. No. 16 DATE: 20060427 DOCKET: 31020 BETWEEN: Rita Graveline Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 9, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-000772-MR PEGGY GILBERT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE ROBERT G.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALISSA HARTEN, Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN DAVID HARTEN, Deceased, UNPUBLISHED April 15, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 237375 Ingham Circuit Court

More information

Claimant illegality as a defence to negligence: Gray v Thames Trains and others

Claimant illegality as a defence to negligence: Gray v Thames Trains and others Claimant illegality as a defence to negligence: Gray v Thames Trains and others WILLIAMS, K. Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/1003/ This document

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASIDNGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JOHNSON, J.- This case involves two certified questions from the United

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASIDNGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JOHNSON, J.- This case involves two certified questions from the United FILE IN CLERK'S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON DATE JAN 1 4 2016 This opinion was filed for rec;qd at6!'doa-w\ on_jcvn9 ~,'l,.. "'ito B~w::i~~-:. 1{' ~ ~:Ronald A. CEI~ Supreme Court Clark IN

More information

and DAWN MacKINNON Defendant 1 and PRIMMUM INSURANCE COMPANY INC

and DAWN MacKINNON Defendant 1 and PRIMMUM INSURANCE COMPANY INC ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COURT FILE NO. 03B-6288 B E T W E E N : KYLE JOHN CLIFFORD and DAWN MacKINNON Defendant 1 and PRIMMUM INSURANCE COMPANY INC COURT FILE NO. 04-B7248 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT

More information

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Case comment on: Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22; and British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge 2007 SCC 23. Presented To:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 In the matter between:- LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT and TSEKISO POULO RESPONDENT CORAM: FARLAM,

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Larc Developments Ltd. v. Levelton Engineering Ltd., 2010 BCCA 18 Commonwealth Insurance Company Larc Developments Ltd. and Rita A. Carle Date:

More information

Police Newsletter, July 2015

Police Newsletter, July 2015 1. Supreme Court of Canada rules on the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone and other digital device search and privacy. 2. On March 30, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled police officers

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Oral Reasons for Judgment July 14, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Oral Reasons for Judgment July 14, 2005 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And ICBC v. Dragon Driving School et al, 2005 BCSC 1093 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Dragon Driving School Canada Ltd., Foon-Wai

More information

DUTY OF CARE. The plaintiff must firstly establish that the defendant owed hum a duty of care: this arises where:

DUTY OF CARE. The plaintiff must firstly establish that the defendant owed hum a duty of care: this arises where: DUTY OF CARE REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY AND SALIENT FEATURES To recover damages in negligence, a plaintiff must firstly establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care. In broad terms, a duty of care

More information

Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable

Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable 1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable Mary Paterson* and Gerard Kennedy**, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP The Ontario Court of Appeal s August 2015

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03-0655 444444444444 MARY R. DILLARD, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS COMMUNITY SURVIVOR OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH LEWIS DILLARD, DECEASED, AND MARY R. DILLARD A/N/F

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ELIZABETH A. BANASZAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 28, 2006 v No. 263305 Wayne Circuit Court NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., LC No. 02-200211-NO and Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff,

More information

Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92

Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals

More information

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2237 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DENISE LORRAINE HANANIA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval

More information