All Case Studies, Part II

Question 1

O.J Simpson Case.

Answer 1

former football star charged with the murder of his wife and friend: he was found not guilty, but the families of the murdered individuals sought compensation for damages in law of tort and won: the civil jury determined that it was more probable than not (when the criminal jury had not determined that it was beyond a reasonable doubt) and Simpson was charged with this compensation

Question 2

Miller v. Jackson Case.

Answer 2

the plaintiffs alleged negligence on the part of the cricket players with the house/garden nearby, and the claim was that the cricket players were doing something that a reasonable person would not do (demonstrates negligence tort)

Question 3

Whiten v, Pilot Insurance

Answer 3

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance: insurance company conducted the issue of punitive damages; insurance company did not give the family after house fire the needed money, saying that the fire was arson: this is not correct, punitive damages of 1 million therefore were paid to the family (pits private interests of tort law against general principles of public policy)

Question 4

Bettel v. Yim

Answer 4

Boy was charged of starting a fire in a shop-owner’s store: to obtain a confession, the shop owner shook the boy, physically assaulted him and causing a head injury “claiming it was accidental”
-Determined that even tho it was not “intentional” this did not mitigate the fact that HE WAS STILL ENTIRELY LIABLE

Question 5

Blyth. vs. Birmingham Water Works

Answer 5

Blyth vs. Birmingham Water Works, 1856 England: defined negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable man would not do; defendant installed fire plug to prevent flooding, flooded anyway after severe frost (which damaged the plug), and then was sued: this was an accident (demonstrates defense against negligence)

Question 6

Donoghue v. Stevenson:

Answer 6

doctrine of negligence; piece of a snail in ginger beer, consumer was sick for days, took company to court and said they were negligent (liability for products); You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Question 7

Mustapha vs. Culligan.

Answer 7

mans sued water company for a dead fly at the bottom of a water bottle and claimed psychological harm: developed major depressive order based on consuming this water for a long time: failed because he could not prove that the damage was caused in law by the defendant’s negligence

Question 8

Tallow vs, Tailfeathers

Answer 8

plaintiffs were passengers in a stolen car driven by the defendant, defendant fell asleep at the wheel due to alcohol and fatigue, and plaintiff tried to claim negligence after the other was killed: court ruled that this was unreasonable as the plaintiff had assisted in stealing the car, knew the conditions of the driver, and therefore had no grounds

Question 9

King v. Redlich

Answer 9

hockey player hit in the head when not wearing helmet; demonstrates that plaintiff would have voluntarily assumed the risks of a given activity and therefore no damages are owed

Question 10

John Doe v. Benett

Answer 10

roman catholic priest that sexually assaulted boys in his parish, two other bishops did not take steps to stop the abuse, 36 children were sexually abused, when adults they all sued: issue of direct liability vs vicarious liability

Question 11

-E.B vs. Order of the Oblates:

Answer 11

churches vicarious liability for sexual assaults in residential schools; they were NOT charged because there was no strong connections between the4 sexual assault committed by the employee and the expectations of the job

Question 12

-Childs. V. Desormeaux:

Answer 12

liability of a person hosting a party at which significant alcohol is consumed, leading later to a motor vehicle accident, death, and serious injury; social host liability

Question 13

Dupont Case.

Answer 13

DuPont Case: perfluorooctanoic acid illegally dumped and leached into water supply, people began dying of cancer and animals began dropping dead: now 98% of the world’s population has this toxin in their bodies

Question 14

Miglin v. Miglin

Answer 14

made it clear that legitimate circumstances can justify overturning private support agreements; hotel owners separated after 14 years, woman was not able to become economically self sufficient and required longer spousal support

Question 15

Moge v . Moge

Answer 15

woman was not able to become economically self-sufficient–but both parties ‘should’ be able to move on in modern day society (this was not the case historically); man had to pay spousal support for longer and in greater amounts due to her disadvantage; economic independence of the janitor wife, petition to stop spousal support and the woman going into poverty

Question 16

Hickey v. Hickey

Answer 16

Ownerrs of lodge separated after 14 years, wife was unable to financially independent, husband complained about spousal support. Demonstrates that child support must increase as children’s needs increased needs as they age; demonstrates how the same standard of living must be kept to that occurred during the marriage

Question 17

-R v. Cooper:

Answer 17

drunk man murdered his girlfriend during an argument, could not remember her actually dying, threw her body out of the car, and moved on: said he did not mean to kill her, and did not foresee that choking her would cause death: demonstrates how actus reus and mens rea are difficult to determine in a murder case

Question 18

-R v. Hundal:

Answer 18

-R v. Hundal: accidental driving incident causing death: demonstrates the question of evil intent

Question 19

R v. Point:

Answer 19

demonstrates air of reality test; intoxicated woman killed another with 15 fatal blows to the head; demonstrates that intoxication and the value of someone’s actions while drunk; defendent argued this and lost

Question 20

-Daviavault v. R:

Answer 20

man who consumed 8 beers and a 40 oz bottle of brandy sexually assaulted a 65 year old woman; demonstrates defence based on intoxication

Question 21

-R v. Tatton:

Answer 21

intoxicated man accused on arson, left oil in a pan on high and left the house, did not “realize” the effects it would have; defence based on intoxication could not be used

Question 22

R v. Gladue

Answer 22

Indigenous offenders are treated differently than others; restorative justice principles

Question 23

Thomas v. Mount Saint University.

Answer 23

Thomas v. Mount Saint Vincent University: denial of tenure with the professor case; tribunal hearing denied the tenure/ senate review committee reversed decision/ president refused to accept decision of senate review committee
-Demonstrates lack of proper review appeal process, the senate committee had no power to overrule, president was determined to be unbiased so therefore the issue was one of procedural fairness

Question 24

Re-Sheehan Case

Answer 24

demonstrates whether the courts, when granting such a range of discretion to administrative agencies, allowed irreverent considerations in the decision-making process (Assaulted prisoner whose criminal record was then taken into account to see if any punishment should follow)—excluded from compensation for irrelevant reasons

Question 25

Ms. Baker Case:

Answer 25

Jamaican women immigrated to the country illegally, four canadian born children and 4 in Jamaica, threatened to be deported by immigration officers with racial/sexist bias: demonstrates due process, excess of jurisdiction (by the immigration offices enacting too much authority), doctrine of fairness (whether it was fair to deport her and leave her children in foster care), and natural justice

Question 26

-Cardinal/Oswald v. Director of Kent Institution:

Answer 26

two prisoners took guard hostage, kept in solitary confinement, Segregation Board Review said they could be released and put among other prisoners, prisoners appealed to the court when in solitary confinement and argued that they had not been given a fair hearing by the director
(demonstrates principles of natural justice, right to fair hearing)

Question 27

Re Howard v. Stony Mountain Institution:

Answer 27

prisoner with the right to fair hearing regarding in-prison offenses, requested to have counsel represent him at the hearing denied

Question 28

-R v. Gladue:

Answer 28

Indigenous offenders are treated differently than others; restorative justice principles

Question 29

Brown v. Entertainment Association

Answer 29

Supreme Court rules against banning violent video games: finding no correlation between violence and the games (demonstrates how moral panics quickly escalates into questions of informing the law)/ moral panics often make their way into law by raising various questions// demonstrates how law changes with the society

Question 30

Bedford Case:

Answer 30

criminalization of prostitution harmed women at the time; forced women into more dangerous situations and places based on Section 7, law was creating more harm than it was preventing (had to go to areas with higher crime/drug use, women couldn’t hire people to protect them—shift then to charge the source, and charge the customers//demonstrates how law changes with the society