LECTURE 1: Introduction
2 main braches of Law
• Criminal – state vs. accused
• Common – judge made law
2 sources of law:
• Legislation – Federal or Provincial Legislations/ statutes / regulations. • Common (case law) – judge made.
Civil Law: about a party bringing an action for a personal remedy of some kind.
Tort – a legal wrong which entitles you to some sort of remedy. • Intentional Tort – ex. Assault and battery.
o Defamation – An intentional tort. The reputation of the victim is damaged publicly by untrue statements made by the tort-feezer. ▪ Slander – Untrue verbal statements.
▪ Liable – Untrue written statements.
• Unintentional Tort – ex. Negligence.
Tort Law: The goal of tort law is to compensate the victim whom had been wronged, not to punish the tort-feezer.
EXAM PREVIEW!!! – Negligence hypothetical question – Given the facts of a case, describe all relevant material covered in the notes, give legal justification and plausible decision. • Identify as negligence/unintentional tort
• Identify the tort-feezer
• Identify the plaintiff(s) (pi/P)
Note: At one time only one defendant at a time was allowed. Under current laws 1 or more defendants may be liable to the plaintiff.
Concurrent Tort-feezers: - 2 or more defendants liable to the victim. Vicarious Liability: - An employer is responsible for the torts committed by their employees during employment. *why is it there? To compensate the victim not punish the tort-feezer. Also, gives responsibility to the employer (company).
Note: Civil Cases have lower standards to hold the accused responsible – see O.J
The central test for establishing negligence.
*Balance of Probabilities!!! :
– In tort/negligence law the plaintiff must prove three key factors on a Balance of Probabilities.
I – Each Defendant owed the Plaintiff a “DUTY OF CARE” II – Each Defendant Breached that “DUTY OF CARE”, (“STANDARD OF CARE”) III – Plaintiff’s injuries are a direct result of the breach of the duty of care (“casual connection”).
Note: The Balance of Probabilities is the roadmap for analyzing negligence hypothetical problems and must be included in examination response.
A closer LOOK…
Duty of Care: Is it reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff could be injured as a result of the defendant(s) action (lack of action). Standard of Care: Plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to meet the expected or reasonable standard of care (Breached the duty of care). Normally experts in the field of question may testify as to what is the reasonable amount of care.
• If the Plaintiff can prove the first two factors in the Balance of Probabilities and also show that the injuries (physical or monetary) are a result of the defendant(s) lack of care then the defendant is liable to the plaintiff.
Damages: is the amount of money awarded to the plaintiff for their injury – physical/ financial.
The next decision is to determine how much the defendant is liable for: The Plaintiff is said to be entitled to reasonably foreseeable damages.
Note: If more than one defendant is found liable the liability is divided by the courts amongst the concurrent tort-feezers.
PLEASE SEE THE HYPOTHETICAL OILI, MESSI, CRUDDI
LECTURE 2: Negligent Misrepresentation:
IMPORTANT CASE STUDY!!!
• Headley/Burn is an advertising agency, with a potential customer. • H/B looked into the customer’s credit by asking their bank for information. • The bank corresponded with HB and stated that indeed the customer had money. • H/B did the advertising work and did not get paid because the customer had no money. This case has many significant aspects which must be discussed for nearly every single negligence question....