Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Professional negligence
- Not a separate tort, it refers to negligence that is committed by professional person, ex: banker,
accountant
1. Duty of care
Should the defendant have been careful toward the plaintiff?
3. Causation of harm
Was the damage actually caused by defendant?
4. Defences
Was the plaintiff negligent as well?
Did the plaintiff accept the risk?
Did the plaintiff act illegally?
Plaintiff must prove there was a duty of car (def had to use care to avoid harming the plaintiff)
- duty of care: liability possible
- no duty of care: liability not possible
1. Judge will ask if duty of care question has been answered by a previous case, we already that
bottler owes duty of care to a consumer & a mother does NOT owe duty of care to unborn child
2. If duty of care question not previously answered, judge will ask 3 questions about
- reasonable foreseeability
- proximity
- policy
A. Reasonable Foreseeability
- Objective test
- would reasonable person in def’s position have foreseen possibility that plaintiff would be
injured
- NOT asking if the def personally knew that its activities might harm plaintiff
B. Proximity
Negligent Statements
- Balance betw the compensation for those hurt by negligent statements and the need to protect
businesses from disastrous consequences of being liable
5. Statement of fact (or opinion based on fact) rather than pure opinion
- Reasonable person would rely on info of professional stock expert but not on a prediction of the
outcome of a horse race
- Liability less likely if (ie. duty of care less likely if) def’s statement accompanied by disclaimer
1. Def knew that plaintiff (wither individually or as member of group) might rely on statement
2. Plaintiff relied on that statement for its intended purpose (ie you meant to rely on statement AND
you have to use statement for intended purpose)
C. Policy
- Court will look at the effect a duty of care will have on legal system & society in general
- Proximity: focus on parties’ relationship
- Policy: focus on legal, social, political concerns
- Std of care is determined using reasonable person test, “how would a reasonable person act in
this situation?”
- It is an objective test (no allowances for def’s subjective/personal characteristics)
- Def cannot hide behind own deficiencies (ex: def cannot say he did his best or that he suffered
from mental disability)
- Standard applied at time of alleged breach, ie std of care is based on info that was reasonable
avail to the def at time of breach
Factors
- Judge will lower std of care for children, enough that child acted as reasonable child with similar
age, intelligence, experience
- Reasonable person takes precautions against reasonably foreseeable risks, note: something can
be reasonably foreseeable even if unlikely to occur
- Reasonable person does not need to take precaution against unforeseeable risks
- Greater care required if chance of loss is high & severity is high
- Reas. person should pay for affordable precautions
- Less care if socially valuable activity, ex: appropriate for police driver to go past red light
- Sudden peril doctrine: less care if emergency, reas. person may make mistakes during
emergencies
2. Std of care is based on info that was reasonable avail to the def at time of breach
- ex: someone trying to sue hospital for not screening blood for HIV
- if that person got HIV before it was discovered, then no std of care b/c at that time, hospitals
didn’t know how to screen for HIV
4. Std of care not breached (no liab) if def’s mistake was an error of judgment (a mistake that a
reasonable professional might make)