Tort Law Flashcards

Under the Anns/Cooper test for establishing a novel duty of care in negligence, what is the correct first step?

Answer: Determine whether there is a sufficiently close and proximate relationship between the parties such that harm was reasonably foreseeable

The first stage of the Anns/Cooper test asks whether the relationship between the parties is sufficiently proximate and whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, establishing a prima facie duty of care.

Under the Ontario Occupiers' Liability Act, what standard of care does an occupier owe to persons entering the premises?

Answer: A duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that persons on the premises are reasonably safe

Section 3 of the Ontario Occupiers' Liability Act imposes a single common duty of care on all occupiers: to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances to make persons on the premises reasonably safe.

Which of the following best describes the 'but for' test for causation in negligence?

Answer: The plaintiff must prove that but for the defendant's negligence, the harm would not have occurred

The 'but for' test requires the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that but for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would not have suffered the injury.

The test for remoteness of damage in negligence was authoritatively established by which case?

Answer: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound No. 1) [1961] AC 388

The Wagon Mound (No. 1) established that a defendant is only liable for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach, replacing the direct consequence test from Polemis.

In Ontario, contributory negligence is governed by which statute?

Answer: The Negligence Act, RSO 1990, c N.1

Ontario's Negligence Act replaced the common law complete bar to recovery with a system of apportionment, allowing damages to be divided according to the degree of fault of each party.

Which of the following is the essential element that distinguishes private nuisance from negligence?

Answer: The interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of land must be unreasonable

Private nuisance protects against unreasonable interference with a plaintiff's use and enjoyment of land; it does not require proof of intent or negligence, and can be established by non-physical interference such as noise or smell.

Which of the following correctly describes the defence of volenti non fit injuria in a negligence claim?

Answer: The plaintiff voluntarily assumed both the physical risk of harm and the legal risk by agreeing to waive any claim against the defendant

Volenti requires proof that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed both the physical risk and the legal risk — that is, that they agreed to relieve the defendant of liability for negligence, which is a high bar.