Cases

Front 1

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Facts:- Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger beer at a café - Ginger beer made by Stevenson beverages in dark opaque bottles- She drank half from the bottle, poured the rest into a glass- Out slid the decomposed remnants of a snail - She felt ill, doctor diagnosed gastroenteritis and shock Issue: could she sue? if so, on what basis?

Back 1

- No, couldn't sue, she didn't buy the drink her friends did- At the time, she could only sue for break of K, Denied at trial- She appeal to UK hose of Lords

Front 2

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Application: Law should encourage manufacturers to prevent harm to users.Rule?

Back 2

- Manufacturers owe a duty of care to the end customer in the expected use of the products- Duty (obligation) exists regardless of contract

Front 3

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Conclusion?

Back 3

Conclusion: Donoghue was able to sue Stevenson for bodily harm and nervous shock

Front 4

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Key Points

Back 4

- You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbor- Neighbor = persons who are so closely and directly affected by your act that it is reasonable to contemplate their well being when performing the act - Creates an obligation to a third party base on duty of care

Front 5

Lambert v Lastoplex (1972) Facts:

- L used 2 cans of Lastoplex Supremeo floor lacquer in basement

- L is an Mechanical Engineer

- There were warnings on the can that said keep away froman open flame

- The plaintiff didn’t turn off the pilot light for hisfurnace and hot water tank and an explosion occurred

Issues?

Back 5

- Is the manufacturer liable despite warnings on the can?

- Is user liable or partly liable because he is amechanical engineer?

Front 6

Trial Court - found for Lambert (Lastoplex negligent)

Appeal - reversed: Lambert (as a ME) had ‘special knowledge’(“volenti non fit injuria”)

Supreme Court of Canada - Restored Trial Court judgment

why?

Back 6

- Just because he is a ME doesn’t mean he appreciated therisk

- Needs to be proven as fact in circumstances

- Warning on similar products indicated pilot light risk

- Lastoplex liable in negligence (below SOC, failed DOC)

Front 7

Lambert v Lastoplex (1972)

Conclusion

Back 7

- If a product is not defective and suitable for itspurpose, but dangerous to use, you need to provide more than a general warningbefore passing on the risk to the consumer.

- A general warning, for example that the product isinflammable, will not suffice where the likelihood of fire may be increasedaccording to the surroundings in which it may reasonably be expected that theproduct will be used

- Explicitness of warning depends on the danger likely tobe encountered in the ordinary use of the product

Front 8

Hedley Byrne &Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd (1963) UK Facts:

- Advertising agency asked Bankers for credit rating of apotential client

- Bankers (D) negligently supplied favourable credit info(ie wrong)

- Advertisers (P) relied on info, which caused loss

- But, Bankers stipulated that the info was provided“without responsibility” in the Ks

Issues: were the Bankers liable for Plaintiffs loss?

Back 8

- where one person relied on the special skill andjudgement of another, and when the second person knew of that reliance, thesecond person was duty-bound to take reasonable care in exercising the specialskill”

- Unless there is an explicit and clear waiver of thatduty

Held: No, because D had explicit disclaimer in the contract

Front 9

Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd (1963)

Significance?

Back 9

- focused attention on services performed byprofessionals who possessed special skills (eg. bankers who had the ability toassess the credit rating of their clients)

- expanded the scope of damages that may be recovered ina negligence suit:

- without the disclaimer, Bankers providing the badadvice would have been liable to pay the Advertisers losses from actions takenbased on that advice like

Front 10

EdgeworthConstruction Ltd. v. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd. (1993) Facts:

- Engineering group provided specification &construction drawings to Owner that was to be used in bidding process.

- Specs were faulty

- Contractor who won the bid built the project and lostmoney because the specs were incorrect = delays and cost overruns- Engineering firm (NDLA) had no K with Contractor (itwas a bid process)

Issues?

Back 10

- SCC - relied on Hedley Byrne rationale

- “Liability for negligent misrepresentation arises wherea person makes a representation knowing that another may rely on it, and theplaintiff in fact relies on the representation to its detriment”

Front 11

Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd. (1993)

Conclusion:

Back 11

- Engineering firm was liable in negligence

- Implies there was no reasonable excuse for their errors

Front 12

Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. v. Noranda MetalIndustries Ltd. (1994) ON SC Facts:

- Environmental consultant hired by Noranda (D) to reporton compliance and liability assessments of properties - turned out to beinaccurate.

-Contained a disclaimer accepting the responsibility forreliance damages

- Noranda sold the property to Wolverine - N told W thatthey could rely on the reports and did not have to get their environmentalconsult1

Verdict?

Back 12

Held: supported the validity of the explicit disclaimer

- statements disclaiming responsibility to third partieswill absolve the parties making the statements from liability

Front 13

Winnipeg CondominiumCorp No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. Ltd. (1995) SCC Facts:

- Building completed in 1974, sold & converted tocondo in 1978

- 1989 - 20ft long piece of cladding fell from the 9thfloor of the building to the ground, required cleanup & replacement cost of$1.5M

Issue: are the original contractor, architect, engineers still liable?

Back 13

Held: Yes

- even though no K exists between original contractor andlater purchaser, the SCC found it was foreseeable to:

- “take reasonable care in constructing the building andto ensure that the building does not contain defects that pose foreseeable andsubstantial danger to the health and safety of the occupants.”

- D liable for reasonable cost of repairing defects andputting building back into a non-dangerous state

Front 14

“The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher”

Rylands v. Fletcher(1986) UK;}

Back 14

- A defendant is strictly liable to the Plaintiff for thenon-natural use of their own land, where something escapes from their propertyand injures the plaintiff.

- Requires: non-natural use of land + unusual dangercreated by that use + something escapes beyond it

- Takeaway: reasonable foreseeability about consequencesof actions, even on your own property.

- Strict liability: liable regardless of precautions;