Tort Law and Negligence Flashcards

Which of the following best states the elements that a plaintiff must prove in a negligence action against a professional engineer in Canada?

Answer: Duty of care, breach, causation, and damages

A successful negligence claim requires proof of all four elements: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the plaintiff's harm (causation); and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual damage.

What is 'res ipsa loquitur' and in what type of engineering negligence case might it apply?

Answer: The thing speaks for itself — allows an inference of negligence from the very occurrence of an accident that would not normally happen without negligence

Res ipsa loquitur allows a court to infer negligence from the occurrence of an accident that, in ordinary circumstances, would not occur without negligence — shifting the evidentiary burden to the defendant to provide an explanation.

What is the 'thin skull rule' (or 'eggshell skull rule') in Canadian tort law, and how does it affect professional liability claims?

Answer: A defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them — if the plaintiff has a pre-existing vulnerability, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm even if it is greater than expected

The thin skull rule requires a defendant to take the plaintiff as they find them. If the plaintiff's pre-existing condition makes them more vulnerable to harm, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage, even if it is disproportionate to what a normal person would have suffered.

Under Canadian law, which type of economic loss arising from professional negligence typically faces the highest legal hurdles to recovery?

Answer: Pure economic loss (financial loss unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage)

Pure economic loss — financial harm not consequential on physical injury or property damage — is traditionally the most difficult category to recover in negligence, requiring satisfaction of additional legal requirements beyond the standard negligence elements.

Which defence in tort law allows a defendant to argue that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk of injury?

Answer: Volenti non fit injuria

Volenti non fit injuria ('to a willing person, injury is not done') is a complete defence that bars recovery if the plaintiff fully and voluntarily accepted the legal risk of the harm that occurred.

In the context of professional engineering liability, what is the significance of 'novus actus interveniens'?

Answer: An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the engineer's negligence and the plaintiff's harm, potentially relieving the engineer of liability for subsequent damage

Novus actus interveniens is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. If a third party's independent and unforeseeable act intervenes between the engineer's negligence and the plaintiff's harm, the engineer may not be liable for the damage caused by the intervening act.