Law of torts

The tort of negligence says that you should take reasonable care to ensure that your actions do not cause harm to others. For a plaintiff to succeed in a negligence action, ALL the following three factors (called ‘elements’) must be shown: 1) Was the plaintiff a “ neighbour” of the defendant and therefore owed a duty of care ? 2) Did the defendant breach their duty of care? 3) Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff damage or injury? A neighbour of the defendant is someone who is proximate in a chain of events. What is an example where no duty of care is owed? COPY

 The “snail in the bottle” case is THE most famous negligence case.  You need to know it! p.231 and 241 1) What are the facts of the case (what happened)? 2) Why couldn’t the plaintiff sue the manufacturer under the old law? 3) This case created a new precedent. What important change did this case make to the law?

In 1994, Stella Liebeck was a 79 year-old passenger in a stopped car when she attempted to open a cup of coffee purchased at a McDonalds drive-up window.  While removing the lid to add cream and sugar, coffee that was between 80 and 90 degrees (just below boiling point) spilled on her legs and groin.  Liquids at this temperature cause third degree burns, a type of burn that penetrates the entire thickness of the skin all the way down to the muscle -- in as little as two seconds. The thinner the skin, the deeper the burn.third degree burns

 McDonalds' corporate policy required its restaurants hold coffee-to-go at this temperature, so it would stay good and hot over a long car trip.  Ms. Liebeck required eight days of hospitalization, debriding and skin grafts to recover from the accident.  She lost 20 percent of her body weight through the ordeal, and was permanently scarred and disabled for over two years.

At trial, it was revealed to the jury that McDonalds had had more than 700 previous reported claims of severe burns from its coffee between 1982 to 1992, and that many of the victims were burned over the same parts of their bodies and to the same degree as Ms. Liebeck. McDonalds took no steps whatsoever to warn customers about the hazard.

1) Was the plaintiff a neighbour of the defendant and therefore owed a duty of care ? 2) Did the defendant breach their duty of care? 3) Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff damage or injury?

The jury found McDonalds' behavior callous. The company was ruled 80% at fault and Ms. Liebeck 20% at fault in the accident. They imposed a penalty on McDonalds equal to just two days of coffee sales, about $2.7 million. A trial judge reduced that amount to $640,000. After the trial, McDonalds turned down the temperature of its coffee...

The three elements in detail: 1) Was the plaintiff a neighbour of the defendant and therefore owed a duty of care ? When are two parties ‘neighbours’? “when someone is closely and directly affected by that person’s acts or omissions” - The risk is foreseeable - The risk is significant (not far-fetched) - In the same circumstances, a reasonable person in the same position would have taken steps to eliminate the risk of harm

2) Did the defendant breach their duty of care? “Did the defendant fail to act as a reasonable person would have in the same situation?”  What would a reasonable person have done?  Did the defendant do it?  The more serious and likely the risk, the more care is required.  The easier it is to avoid, the more reasonable it is to expect it to be done.

3) Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff damage or injury?  If something else caused the plaintiff’s damage/injury, then the defendant is not liable.  Causation is the key!