According to Boyd (2015), negligence can be defined as the failure “to conform to a standard of reasonable care” (p. 202). In tort cases concerning negligence, unlike criminal cases, the culpability of the accused is not dependent on malicious intent. Instead, to establish negligence the plaintiff must present “a case that is more probable than not” (Boyd, 2015, p. 203). The cases of Annapolis County District School Board v. Marshall and Ediger v. Johnston contain disputes between various courts over the nature of negligence. In this paper, the Supreme Court 's judgements for both cases will be evaluated and it will be argued that, in both cases, their judgements provided the best interpretation of a standard of reasonable care.
Annapolis …show more content…
She asserted that these provisions “inform the standard of care that Mr. Feener owed to all pedestrians” (para. 7). Justice Cromwell, the sole dissenter, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge misled the jury to assess the responsibilities of pedestrians rather than those of drivers (para. 14). Another contested point was that the trial judge had questioned whether there were “circumstances that would indicate to the driver that he was in an area where children were likely to be present” (para. 9). Marshall argued that this comment suggested to the jury that, since the incident did not occur in a place with specific warnings about children, Feener had no duty to exercise precautions. Justice Deschamps rejected this as an implication of the trial judge 's comments (para. 10). Ultimately, the Court found that Feener 's appeal should be allowed (para. …show more content…
Johnston concerns the birth of Cassidy Ediger. Due to complications, Dr. William Johnston, had decided to deliver her with a forceps procedure (para. 4). Johnston had failed to notify Cassidy 's mother of the procedure 's possible risks, which include fetal bradycardia (para. 5). He had also failed to ascertain that staff was available to provide an emergency C-section if the forceps failed (para. 6). Partway through the procedure, Johnston changed his mind in favour of a C-section (paras. 7-8). The doctor needed to assist with the C-section was unable to immediately prepare Cassidy 's mother for the operation (para. 11). By the time Cassidy was delivered, eighteen minutes had passed since the onset of bradycardia, which resulted in devastating brain damage (para. 12). Had the arrangements for a C-section been made before the forceps started, Cassidy could have been delivered two to five minutes after abandonning the procedure (para. 14). The trial judge found Johnston to be negligent, as he “took “no steps” to ensure that surgical back-up would be immediately available” (para.
Annapolis …show more content…
She asserted that these provisions “inform the standard of care that Mr. Feener owed to all pedestrians” (para. 7). Justice Cromwell, the sole dissenter, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge misled the jury to assess the responsibilities of pedestrians rather than those of drivers (para. 14). Another contested point was that the trial judge had questioned whether there were “circumstances that would indicate to the driver that he was in an area where children were likely to be present” (para. 9). Marshall argued that this comment suggested to the jury that, since the incident did not occur in a place with specific warnings about children, Feener had no duty to exercise precautions. Justice Deschamps rejected this as an implication of the trial judge 's comments (para. 10). Ultimately, the Court found that Feener 's appeal should be allowed (para. …show more content…
Johnston concerns the birth of Cassidy Ediger. Due to complications, Dr. William Johnston, had decided to deliver her with a forceps procedure (para. 4). Johnston had failed to notify Cassidy 's mother of the procedure 's possible risks, which include fetal bradycardia (para. 5). He had also failed to ascertain that staff was available to provide an emergency C-section if the forceps failed (para. 6). Partway through the procedure, Johnston changed his mind in favour of a C-section (paras. 7-8). The doctor needed to assist with the C-section was unable to immediately prepare Cassidy 's mother for the operation (para. 11). By the time Cassidy was delivered, eighteen minutes had passed since the onset of bradycardia, which resulted in devastating brain damage (para. 12). Had the arrangements for a C-section been made before the forceps started, Cassidy could have been delivered two to five minutes after abandonning the procedure (para. 14). The trial judge found Johnston to be negligent, as he “took “no steps” to ensure that surgical back-up would be immediately available” (para.