LSO Barrister Tort Law 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An employer's vicarious liability for a tort committed by an employee is most accurately described as:
- Liability based solely on the employer's own negligence in hiring or supervising the employee
- Strict liability for every act or omission of every employee at all times
- Liability imposed on the employer for employee torts committed in the course of employment (Correct answer)
- Liability requiring proof that the employer authorized the specific tortious act
Correct answer: Liability imposed on the employer for employee torts committed in the course of employment
Vicarious liability attaches to an employer for torts committed by an employee acting in the course of employment, regardless of whether the employer was personally at fault.
Question 2: In Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534, the Supreme Court of Canada held that an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort where:
- The employer was negligent in supervising the employee
- There is a sufficiently strong connection between the enterprise risk created by the employer and the wrong done by the employee (Correct answer)
- The employee acted expressly within the scope of their enumerated duties
- The employer financially benefited from the employee's wrongful conduct
Correct answer: There is a sufficiently strong connection between the enterprise risk created by the employer and the wrong done by the employee
In Bazley v Curry, the SCC held that vicarious liability for intentional torts requires a strong connection between the enterprise risk created or enhanced by the employer and the wrong committed by the employee.
Question 3: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability where:
- Any dangerous thing escapes from the defendant's land and causes damage
- A person brings onto land a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, makes a non-natural use of the land, and the thing escapes causing damage (Correct answer)
- Any ultra-hazardous activity causes foreseeable harm to a neighbour
- A nuisance on the defendant's land spreads and damages the plaintiff's property
Correct answer: A person brings onto land a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, makes a non-natural use of the land, and the thing escapes causing damage
Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability where a defendant makes a non-natural use of land by accumulating something likely to do mischief if it escapes, and that thing does escape and causes damage.
Question 4: Under the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002, what is the basic limitation period for most tort claims?
- Six years from the date the cause of action arose
- Two years from the date the claim was discovered (Correct answer)
- One year from the date of injury for personal injury claims
- Three years from the date the defendant knew of the claim
Correct answer: Two years from the date the claim was discovered
The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002, s. 4 establishes a basic limitation period of two years from the date the claim was discovered, replacing the old fixed-date regime.
Question 5: In the tort of deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation), which of the following is NOT a required element?
- A false representation of existing fact
- The defendant knew the statement was false or was reckless as to its truth
- The plaintiff actually relied on the representation
- The plaintiff's reliance was objectively reasonable (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The plaintiff's reliance was objectively reasonable
Deceit does not require that the plaintiff's reliance be objectively reasonable; it is sufficient that the plaintiff actually relied on the false statement, as long as reliance was intended by the defendant.
Question 6: Which principle governs the assessment of compensatory damages in tort law to restore the plaintiff to their pre-tort position?
- The principle of punitive or exemplary damages
- The restitutio in integrum principle (Correct answer)
- The crumbling skull doctrine
- The collateral benefit rule
Correct answer: The restitutio in integrum principle
The restitutio in integrum principle requires that tort damages restore the plaintiff, as nearly as money can, to the position they would have occupied but for the defendant's tortious conduct.
Question 7: The 'thin skull' rule in tort law provides that:
- A defendant is only liable for harm that a reasonable person would have foreseen
- A defendant must take their victim as they find them, and is fully liable even if the plaintiff's unusual vulnerability leads to greater harm (Correct answer)
- Damages are reduced proportionately where the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition
- A defendant is not liable for aggravation of a pre-existing condition
Correct answer: A defendant must take their victim as they find them, and is fully liable even if the plaintiff's unusual vulnerability leads to greater harm
The thin skull rule holds that a tortfeasor must take the victim as they find them — if a pre-existing vulnerability causes the plaintiff to suffer greater harm than a normal person would, the defendant is still fully liable for all resulting damage.
LSO Barrister Tort Law 2
An employer's vicarious liability for a tort committed by an employee is most accurately described as: