CONCLUSION aggravating the loss that the D’s Bradford of risk test – Breach Facts negligence causes. Price v Milawski _____________________________ Breach caused Loss Within the Scope of the OR Conclusion – Risk? YES / NO Loss Facts Breach /= Loss Remote Met / Too Remote Break the chain of _____________________________ causation? YES / NO Duty of care Thin Skull Crumbling Skull Established duty of care Remoteness Novel Duty of Care Anns/Cooper Test Reasonable Foreseeability Thin Skull Proximity Intervening Causes Policy 1-Internal Policy 2-External Defences Contributory Negligence Special duties of care / Affirmative Action Duties: Test: What an ordinary prudent man would do in the circumstances Duty to rescue Liability for intoxicated Walls v Mussens Mod Obj standard test for contrib negl Duty to prevent crime – – Gagnon v Bealieu P ought to have known risk / possibility of injury Duty owed by a barrister – Mortimer v Cameron Contr negl will not limit recovery unless proximate Duty to unborn – cause of injury Preconception Wrongful birth / life Voluntary Assumption of Risk (not if intoxicated) Wrongful pregnancy Prenatal harm Participating in Criminal or Illegal Act Hall v Hebert, BC v Zastowny Health professionals duty to inform – Manufacturers duty to warn Inevitable Accident Standard of Care Probability of injury Severity of harm Liability Types Social utility of Ds actions Strict liability Special standards of care Disabled people Vicarious liability Children Statutory (motor vehicle) Professionals Principal / Agent Employer / Employee (Master / Servant) Breach of standard of care Govt Liability Factual Causation But For Test Material contribution to injury (if insufficient evidence for but for) Strength of Claim Other causation considerations Likelihood of success ________% Multiple causes
Breach Facts _____________________________ Loss Facts _____________________________ CONCLUSION Breach caused Loss OR Breach /= Loss aggravating the loss that the D’s negligence causes. Within the Scope of the Risk? YES / NO Break the chain of causation? YES / NO Bradford – of risk test Price v Milawski Conclusion – Remote Met / Too Remote Duty of care Established duty of care Novel Duty of Care Anns/Cooper Test Reasonable Foreseeability Proximity Policy 1-Internal Policy 2-External Special duties of care / Affirmative Action Duties: Duty to rescue Liability for intoxicated Duty to prevent crime Duty owed by a barrister Duty to unborn Preconception Wrongful birth / life Wrongful pregnancy Prenatal harm Health professionals duty to inform Manufacturers duty to warn Standard of Care Probability of injury Severity of harm Social utility of Ds actions Special standards of care Disabled people Children Professionals Breach of standard of care Factual Causation But For Test Material contribution to injury (if insufficient evidence for but for) Other causation considerations Multiple causes Thin Skull Crumbling Skull Remoteness Thin Skull Intervening Causes Defences Contributory Negligence Test: What an ordinary prudent man would do in the circumstances Walls v Mussens – Mod Obj standard – test for contrib negl Gagnon v Bealieu – P ought to have known risk / possibility of injury Mortimer v Cameron – Contr negl will not limit recovery unless proximate cause of injury Voluntary Assumption of Risk (not if intoxicated) Participating in Criminal or Illegal Act – Hall v Hebert, BC v Zastowny Inevitable Accident Liability Types Strict liability Vicarious liability Statutory (motor vehicle) Principal / Agent Employer / Employee (Master / Servant) Govt Liability Strength of Claim Likelihood of success ________%