NPPE Tort Law and Negligence 2

Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

Duty of care, breach, causation, and damages

Answer

Intention to harm, breach, and damages

Answer

Contractual obligation, breach, and loss

Answer

Foreseeability and proximity only

Question 2

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

Accepted 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

Answer

A Latin term meaning 'let the engineer speak' — requires the engineer to testify

Answer

A rule excluding hearsay evidence in engineering disputes

Answer

A standard for calculating damages in complex cases

Question 3

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

Accepted 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

Answer

Damages are limited to what a person of average constitution would have suffered

Answer

The rule that only foreseeable types of harm are compensable

Answer

A rule limiting damages in personal injury cases to $500,000

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

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

Answer

Economic loss consequential upon physical damage to the plaintiff's own property

Answer

Damages for pain and suffering in personal injury cases

Answer

Loss of profits on a cancelled contract

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

Volenti non fit injuria

Answer

Contributory negligence

Answer

Ex turpi causa

Answer

Necessity

Question 6

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

Accepted 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

Answer

A rule requiring engineers to novate their contracts in writing

Answer

A rule requiring fresh consideration for contract modifications

Answer

A doctrine requiring engineers to disclose conflicts of interest