Chapter Five-Negligence + Professional liability

Question 1

Negligence definition

Answer 1

Inadvertent careless conduct that causes injury or damage to another person or his property

Question 2

Duty of Care

Answer 2

Defendant must have owed a duty of care to plaintiff

Question 3

Reasonable foreseeability test

Answer 3

• injury to plaintiff is foreseeable

- proximity suggests that plaintiff should have been considered by defendant

Question 4

Who do we owe a duty of care to?

Answer 4

Anyone we can reasonably anticipate may be harmed by our conduct

Question 5

What exception does the Ann’s case add?

Answer 5

Allows court to consider social policy rather than strict legal rules (only applies to new scenarios with no precedent duty of care)

Question 6

Misfeasance

Answer 6

Wrongful conduct

Question 7

Nonfeasance

Answer 7

When there is no action

Question 8

Standard of Care

Answer 8

Reasonable person test used by courts to establish sufficient care standard of a prudent person’s likely actions

Question 9

Kids liability

Answer 9

What would a reasonable child of same age have done?

Question 10

Res ispa loquitur

Answer 10

Thing speaks for itself

Question 11

Causation

Answer 11

Negligence requires a loss, plaintiff must prove to court that but for the conduct complained of no injury would have resulted

Question 12

Remoteness test

Answer 12

Determines legal causation, determines how far removed the act was from the injury

Question 13

Thin skull rule

Answer 13

We take our victims as we find them doesn’t matter if we can’t understand the scope of their injuries

Question 14

Crumbling skull rule

Answer 14

If they already had a deteriorating condition can’t sue for it necessarily

Question 15

Defences to negligence

Answer 15

• volenti non fit injuria: defendant must show that the plaintiff not only assumed risk but also legal
• contributory negligence: the plaintiff was also negligent
• ex turpi causa (illegality) plaintiff was acting an illegal capacity

Question 16

Occupiers liability in Alberta

Answer 16

Visitor is owed reasonable duty of care

Adult trespasser is owed no willful or reckless conduct

Question 17

Strict liability

Answer 17

Situations where there is no fault on part of defendant who had acted reasonably but caused damage

Question 18

Product liability

Answer 18

Necessary to establish fault when suing manufactures, must establish duty of care and if there was a failure to live up to that duty

Question 19

Negligent misstatement

Answer 19

When a duty of care was owed to plaintiff, and the professional used negligent words

Question 20

Someone will have been found to have committed negligence misstatement if

Answer 20

The defendant had direct or indirect financial interest in the transaction
Defendant was a professional
Advice was provided in course of business
Info was given deliberately
Information was given in response to s specific injury

Question 21

If accountants don’t follow…

Answer 21

The GAAP or GAAS they can be found negligent usually