cases-flash-cards-tort-test1 Flashcards by James Young

Name the case / Describe the facts

right to sunlight in regards to solar panels

Prah v. Maretti 1982

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

public benefit’ defence from brick-maker is admonished by judge who states property owners must be compensated

Bamford v Turnley 1862

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Qualifies stringent adherence to the hand formula as impossible

McCarty v Pheasant Run Inc. 1987

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Hunter v Canary Warf

skyscraper blocked television signal 1997

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

no right to air, plaintiff brought about his own misfortune

Bryant v Lefever 1879

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Rogers v Elliot

ringing church bell disturbs plaintiff 1888

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

public works must not interfere with the private rights of individuals unless protected by statute. Provincial legislature later passed stute protecting sewage plants.

Stephens v Village of Richmond Hill 1955

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

motorcyclist got bike stuck in the tracks, sued for nuisance

Ryan v Victoria 1999

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Describe Bender’s feminist critique of Tort

the feminine perspective of altruism, caring, holds individuals to a higher standard of care than the minimalist perspective of masculine rights based jurisprudence 1988

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

statutes may draw on nuisance law to learn about remedies; three step process to determine whether statute was breached

Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) 2013

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

new inference rule, res ipsa loqitor, established in landmark case

Byrne v Boddel 1863

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Prah v. Maretti

cannot block a house’s sunlight for solar power 1982

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Shuttelworth v. Vancouver General Hospital

people are afraid of disease from nearby hospital 1927

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Mansfeild v. Weetabix

trucker does not know he had low blood sugar and causes havoc on the roads 1998

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki

prostitution business is considered a nuisance 1952

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

One has no right to a view for purposes of delight

Aldred’s Case (16 19)16 19

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Negligence is famously defined in this case as; “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man… would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company 1856

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Robberts v Ramsbottom

Driver had a stroke prior to collision drove with judgement impaired 1980

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

McHale v Watson

12 year old throws a chunk of metal that blinds another child in one eye 1966

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Canada Paper Company v Brown

Home-owner shuts down smelly paper mill 1922

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

Injunction was imposed on paper mill but subsequent statutes were imposed to protect mills

KVP Co. Ltd. v McKie 1949

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

evidence is admitted to establish ‘proof of custom and usage’ that is indicative of reasonable precautions

Trimarco v Klein 1982

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

temporary insanity was first used a defence against negligence; test for insanity is if it had a causal relationship tothe act

Buckley v. Smith Transport Ltd. 1946

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Name the case / Describe the facts

in a case where one employee slipped, the fact that no other employees slipped is used to indicate the risk was low

Latimer v AEC 1953

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

# Name the case / Describe the facts What does Prosser outline as the court and jury's prerogatives in Tort Law?

1 sufficiency of evidence (J); 2 weight of evidence (J); 3 existence of a duty (C); 4 'general' standard of conduct (J\*); 5 'particular' standard of conduct(J\*)

# Name the case / Describe the facts Pornography store nearby is a nuisance

Laws v. Florinplace Ltd. 1981

# Name the case / Describe the facts TH Critelli v LincolN Trust and Savings Co

defendant builds building, causing snow to accumulate on neighbour 1978

# Name the case / Describe the facts A horse-riding plaintiff is not negligent if the horse he is riding was spurned out of fear or by a third party

Gibbons v Pepper 1695

# Name the case / Describe the facts Coase's criticism of Sturges v Bridgeman regarding the economic analysis of the judge

there are times when one plaintiff’s gain so outweighs the others loss that private contract should be encouraged rather than injunction in order to maximize allocation of resources

# Name the case / Describe the facts a foreseeable risk, even a highly unlikely risk, must be prevented unless a reasonable has reason to not do so (such as prohibitive cost)

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v miller Steamship Co. (Wagon Mound No. 2) 1967

# Name the case / Describe the facts 340909 Ontario Ltd. v. Huron Steel Products (Windsor) Ltd.

factory makes noise; court asks factory to limit noise to certain hours 1990

# Name the case / Describe the facts Kenway v. Thomson

plaintiff inherits a lake, requests injunction on water-skiing 1980

# Name the case / Describe the facts Sturges v. Bridgman

plaintiff builds new room and complains of noise from neighbours mortars in kitchen. The neighbour had partaken in these activities for 20 years 1879

# Name the case / Describe the facts we must not look on 1947 with 1952 spectacles' – Lord Denning

Roe v Ministry of Natural Health 1954

# Name the case / Describe the facts Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation)

Highway destroys truck stop - 1) substantial? 2) reasonable? 3) significant and permanent? 2013

# Name the case / Describe the facts Bolton v Stone

a cricket ball causes injury to a plaintiff on the highway, very low probability of event is established 1951

# Name the case / Describe the facts landmark case explaining proximate cause when a firecracker (squib) was thrown around by many people in a room

Scott v Shepherd 1773

# Name the case / Describe the facts Name the case where Lord Reid reconciles cases where foreseeability and extreme unlikelihood factor in negligence

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt 1979

# Name the case / Describe the facts Anderson v Somberg

doctors, hospital, supplier and manufacturer are jointly held negligent for a tool breaking in surgery because they cannot distinguish who is individually negligent 1975

# Name the case / Describe the facts Appleby v Erie Tobacco

a tobacco factory makes a noxious smell 1910

# Name the case / Describe the facts Black v Canadian Copper Inc.

large mining interest pays damages, but injunction is avoided because of their size and importance in community 1917

# Name the case / Describe the facts Buckley v. Smith Transport Ltd.

man with syphilis of the brain goes insane and crashes into street car 1946

# Name the case / Describe the facts Trimarco v Klein

shattered shower glass causes injury, it was uncommon in the industry to have shattering glass in shower; case ordered for retrial because regulations passed after the event were used 1982

# Name the case / Describe the facts prostitution next door can be a nuisance

Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki 1952

# Name the case / Describe the facts Differentiate Wagon Mound No1 and Wagon Mound No2

No1 emphasized a test for foreseeability (burning down the dock), No2 duty of care to eliminate risk (burning the three ships)

# Name the case / Describe the facts no need for damage to physical health required for nuisance

Flemming v Hislop 1886

# Name the case / Describe the facts Which phase would Prosser prefer be removed from Tort lexicon?

Res Ipsa Loquitor

# Name the case / Describe the facts no right to sunlight; blocking it for business interest makes maliciousness irrelevant

Fountainbleu Hotel Corp v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five Inc. 1959

# Name the case / Describe the facts There are circumstances in which it is impossible for the individual to assert his individual rights as to inflict a substantial injury on the whole community'

Black v Canadian Copper Inc. 1917

# Name the case / Describe the facts mere autocratic assertions of what will be more conducive to the prosperity of the local community' by paper mill cannot trump property rights

Canada Paper Company v Brown 1922

# Name the case / Describe the facts How should the designation of res ipsa loquitor change the burden of proof according to...?

Schiff- res ipsa loqitor does not change the burden of proof

# Name the case / Describe the facts Latimer v AEC

employer does everything he can short of shutting down factory; plaintiff sues for injury when he slips 1953

# Name the case / Describe the facts Landmark case where negligence was decided by the Hand Formula

The United States v Carol Towing Co. 1947

# Name the case / Describe the facts Fleming v Hislop

smoke caused by brick-maker was a nuisance 1886

# Name the case / Describe the facts negligence is held by the standard of an ordinary man, not a man judging 'to the best of his abilities'

Vaughn v Menlove 1837

# Name the case / Describe the facts four arguments for nuisance levied against a nearby hospital all fail

Shuttelworth v. Vancouver General Hospital 1927

# Name the case / Describe the facts sports can be a nuisance, escalation of sports activity

Kenway v. Thomson 1980

# Name the case / Describe the facts Hollywood Silverfox Farm Ltd v. Emmet

shooting guns to disturb neighbours fox farm 1936

# Name the case / Describe the facts Laws v. Florinplace Ltd.

pornography store in the neighbourhood is declared nuisance 1981

# Name the case / Describe the facts Ybarra v Spanguard

several medical professional operate on an unconscious plaintiff, his neck is injured but he cannot identify who did it; res ipsa loqitor invoked 1944

# Name the case / Describe the facts A doctor acting within the standards of his profession will not generally be called into negligence because courts do not have the expertise to tell professionals they are not behaving appropriately in their fields

ter Neuzen v Korn 1995

# Name the case / Describe the facts Fountainbleu Hotel Corp v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five Inc.

big hotel blocks sun of small hotel 1959

# Name the case / Describe the facts noise is a nuisance and maliciousness is a factor

Hollywood Silverfox Farm Ltd v. Emmet 1936

# Name the case / Describe the facts Describe Posner's critique of Bender's feminist perspective on Tort

Bender's critique just equates to strict liability and it is unclear how the net distribution will be affected

# Name the case / Describe the facts plaintiff uses res ipsa loquitor (RIL), but judge rules that RIL counter's a non-suit claim by defendant, but does not change the burden of proof

Fontaine v British Columbia 1998

# Name the case / Describe the facts there are four narrow conditions when nuisance can avoid injunction and just pay damages

Shelfer v City of London Electrical Lighting Co. 1895

# Name the case / Describe the facts noise is intermittent which makes it worse; nuisance passes significant test – all factors analyzed for remedy except who got there first

340909 Ontario Ltd. v. Huron Steel Products (Windsor) Ltd. 1990

# Name the case / Describe the facts The T.J. Hooper

tugboats are not equipped with radio; no industry custom; radio would have prevented damage; tugboats avoid liability 1932

# Name the case / Describe the facts Sites of hospital's sick causing the arousal of empathy is not sufficient for nuisance

Shuttelworth v. Vancouver General Hospital 1927

# Name the case / Describe the facts Res Ipsa Loquitor is used to sue doctor, hospital, suppliers and manufacturers

Anderson v Somberg 1975

# Name the case / Describe the facts The Mayor etc. Of Bradford v. Pickles

property owner diverts stream from town's water supply 1895

# Name the case / Describe the facts Sport is in public interest,playing sports near encroaching property must compensate for damages, not injunction

Miller v Jackson 1977

# Name the case / Describe the facts ter Neuzen v Korn

Dr. uses artificial insemination on plaintiff, gives her HIV, but acted within standards of industry 1995

# Name the case / Describe the facts protection from nuisance by statue is conditional; three different rationals – depending on 'permissiveness', 'discretion', and 'inevitability' of action

Tock v. St. Johns Metropolitan Area Board 1989

# Name the case / Describe the facts Wyong Shire Council v Shirt

reconciles Wagonmound No2 with Bolton v Stone 1979

# Name the case / Describe the facts Miller v Jackson

owners of newly built houses want injunction on nearby cricket field 1977

# Name the case / Describe the facts Smell is a nuisance, delay on injunction indicates protection of business interests

Appleby v Erie Tobacco 1910

# Name the case / Describe the facts Denning – 'in the absence of evidence to draw a distinction between [the contributing plaintiffs], they must both be held to blame'

Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Society Ltd 1953

# Name the case / Describe the facts Bamford v Turnley

defendants burn brick 1862

# Name the case / Describe the facts Byrne v Boddel

plaintiff's barrel of flour drops out of a window causing injury, new evidence and inference rule establishes negligence 1863

# Name the case / Describe the facts The United States v Carol Towing Co.

Barge was left unattended, left moorings and collided with another ship 1947

# Name the case / Describe the facts in measuring due care one must balance risk against the measures necessary to eliminate risk'; emergency responders must reason accordingly

Watt v Hertfordhire County Council 1954

# Name the case / Describe the facts childhood limits the ability to foresee harm, be prudent, and appreciate risk; childhood is not an idiosyncrasy

McHale v Watson 1966

# Name the case / Describe the facts there is a good deal of advantage in being there first

TH Critelli v Lincoln Trust and Savings Co 1978

# Name the case / Describe the facts the risk must be balanced with the cost of precautions; does severity and likelihood of risk require an entire factory to be shut down?

Latimer v AEC 1953

# Name the case / Describe the facts Tock v. St. Johns Metropolitan Area Board

plaintiff sues city (that was operating under statute) for flooding basement; depending on 'permissiveness', 'discretion', and 'inevitability' of action 1989

# Name the case / Describe the facts custom is relevant to negligence; if there is no customary precaution it may mitigate or nullify liability

The T.J. Hooper, mitigated (superseded?) by Carroll Towing 1947 ruling 1932

# Name the case / Describe the facts all plaintiff's in control of an unconscious body may by inferred of negligence

Ybarra v Spanguard 1944

# Name the case / Describe the facts Boomer v Atlantic Cement

large cement company avoids injunction due to its size and importance to community 1970

# Name the case / Describe the facts particular vulnerability of plaintiff is not a factor in nuisance

Rogers v Elliot 1888

# Name the case / Describe the facts Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Society Ltd

Two drivers collide head on in the road, both die, both were found equally negligent 1953

# Name the case / Describe the facts impairment of judgement must be sudden and total to avoid negligence; defendant was negligent but not “morally to blame”

Robberts v Ramsbottom 1980

# Name the case / Describe the facts property rights cause injunction with no exception for business interest, how long the business operated or who was there first

Sturges v. Bridgman 1879

# Name the case / Describe the facts Watt v Hertfordhire County Council

fireman gets injured while responding to an emergency call by an improperly secured jack 1954

# Name the case / Describe the facts Criminal case where a 16 year old was provoked and stabbed provoker; it was questioned whether age reduces standard of reasonable care

R v Hill 1986

# Name the case / Describe the facts When children engage in adult activity that is normally insured they will be held to an adult's standard of care

McEarlean v Sarel 1987

# Name the case / Describe the facts negligence is not just established on foreseeability but on probability; if extremely improbable, negligence cannot be established. Negligence is not based on fairness but on culpability

Bolton v Stone 1951

# Name the case / Describe the facts Fontaine v British Columbia

res ipsa loquitor is used, and fails, to establish negligence in a car accident on a night of flooding. Shciff likes this decision on res ipsa loquitor 1998

# Name the case / Describe the facts landowner can divert water

The Mayor etc. Of Bradford v. Pickles 1895

# Name the case / Describe the facts Bryant v Lefever

adjoining houses and defendant makes his house much higher inconveniencing the other, blocking airflow 1879

# Name the case / Describe the facts McEarlean v Sarel

teenagers cause injury while motorbiking 1987

# Name the case / Describe the facts First 'compensated injunction', encroaching developer forced to pay damages for the injunction they imposed upon farmer

Spur Industries v Del E. Webb Development Co. 1972

# Name the case / Describe the facts disruption of TV is not nuisance

Hunter v Canary Warf 1997

# Name the case / Describe the facts There must be a cut-off point where children become treated as "reasonable persons", and that they must approach this point incrementally

R v Hill 1986

# Name the case / Describe the facts standard of care should be measured as to what a reasonable person should do if they are unaware of their impaired condition

Mansfeild v. Weetabix 1998

# Name the case / Describe the facts American landmark where injunction was ruled as unfair to the defendant, imposed an unjust burden

Boomer v Atlantic Cement 1970

cases-flash-cards-tort-test1 Flashcards

Tort Nuisance and Negligence (106 cards)