# data[].attributes.headline
Establishment of Negligence, Duty of Care and Neighbour Priniciple in Donoghue v Stevenson 

# data[].attributes.subject
Establishment of Negligence, Duty of Care and Neighbour Priniciple in Donoghue v Stevenson 

# data[].attributes.body
Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., 2018 SCC 19, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587

In July 2006, J and his friend C (15 and 16 years old) were drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana at C’s mothers house. They later than left to look for valuable in unlocked cars which lead them to R, a commercial car garage. C found a car, entered it and got R inside then drove them to the highway that they crashed on. J suffered a catastrophic brain injury. J’s guardian sued R, C and C’s mother for negligence. In court it was held that R owed a duty of care to J, but the injury found that all parties had been negligent to a certain extent. R’s garage, 37%, C, 23%, C’s mother, 30% and J. 10%/. The Ontario court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding the R owed a duty of care to J and dismissed the appeal. “In order to establish a duty of care, however, J was not required to show that the characteristics of the particular thief who stole the vehicle or the way in which the injury occurred were foreseeable. Imposition of a duty of care was conditioned in this case only upon J showing that physical injury to him was reasonably foreseeable under any circumstances flowing from R’s negligence. It was open to the trial judge to conclude that R’s negligence in leaving unattended vehicles unlocked with keys inside overnight could have led to reasonably foreseeable physical injury.” There was nothing else to connect the risk of theft of the car to the risk of someone being physically injured. In the end the garage was not responsible for the injuries sustained by J.

This case relates to my topic as it covers negligence as one of the levels of a guilty mind and duty of care owed. Negligence was taking place in everyone’s role, but the duty of care was mostly owed from R to J and C. Also, the fact their minors shifts the level of duty of care as well.

# data[].attributes.headline
CP24 - Campbellville kennel ordered to pay $4,500 after dog breaks teeth

# data[].attributes.subject
CP24 - Campbellville kennel ordered to pay $4,500 after dog breaks teeth

# data[].attributes.body
After a dog was entrusted to the Campbellville kennel, the dog became severely ill, dehydrated and fractured several teeth. “Given the evidence in this case, it was reasonable for the deputy trial judge to conclude that but for the kennel's negligence in not inspecting Maverick and in not calling the owner to come and get him earlier, Maverick would not have suffered his injuries,” The kennel was ordered to pay Richard $4,489 to cover the veterinarian bills she racked up in getting Maverick back to health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TORONTO -- The owner of a kennel is liable for $4,500 in veterinary bills after a dog entrusted to its care became severely ill, dehydrated and fractured several teeth, an Ontario court has ruled.

In a decision upholding a ruling in favour of the dog's owner, Ontario Divisional Court found it reasonable to conclude that Maverick's injuries occurred during his five-day stay at Sunset Dog Retreat east of Guelph, Ont.

"Given the evidence in this case, it was reasonable for the deputy trial judge to conclude that but for the kennel's negligence in not inspecting Maverick and in not calling the owner to come and get him earlier, Maverick would not have suffered his injuries," Justice Nancy Dennison concluded. "There was no persuasive, non-speculative evidence to indicate any precondition to explain the weight loss or damage to that tooth."

The case arose in January 2017 when Julie Richard dropped off her 66-kilogram South African boerboel at Sunset, owned by Jason Bahnman, while she went on vacation. The kennel's onsite veterinarian noted nothing untoward with Maverick and found the dog to be reasonably healthy.

Court documents show the eight-year-old dog suffered kennel stress, and that he and other dogs escaped and broke into the food room for a late-night feast.

When Richard picked him up, Maverick was lethargic and not eating. At an emergency veterinarian clinic, Maverick was found to be running a fever, dehydrated, and had lost nine kilos. He was also found to have three broken teeth that needed surgical extraction.

In January 2018, small claims deputy judge Marlon Roefe sided with Richard. While neither side filed expert evidence on the care a kennel should provide, Roefe decided it was what one would reasonably expect given Sunset's advertising of 24/7 supervision and onsite professional veterinarian.

Roefe found it likely that Maverick's weight loss, dehydration and dental injuries took place at the facility and there was "no persuasive, non-speculative evidence to indicate any pre-condition." He ordered the kennel to pay Richard $4,489 to cover the veterinarian bills she racked up in getting Maverick back to health.

Sunset appealed to Divisional Court, arguing Roefe made several errors, including that the kennel's actions or inaction caused the dog's injuries. However, Dennison found no error in Roefe's reasoning.

"To avoid liability, the kennel had to exercise a standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person in the same circumstances," Dennison said.

While expert testimony is generally required where professional negligence is alleged, Dennison said there are exceptions in non-technical cases where anyone might have knowledge, and where the actions have obviously fallen short.

"It would have been open to the deputy trial judge to find that this was one of those cases where the conduct had fallen so short of the standard of care of any person taking care of a dog that no expert evidence was required," Dennison said. "It was open to the deputy trial judge to find that, but for the negligent conduct of the kennel, Maverick would not have suffered his injuries."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Campbellville kennel ordered to pay $4,500 after dog breaks teeth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TORONTO -- The owner of a kennel is liable for $4,500 in veterinary bills after a dog entrusted to its care became severely ill, dehydrated and fractured several teeth, an Ontario court has ruled.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is a video that explains my definition of negligence and all its elements used in the court system.

# data[].attributes.body
Tort law is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. There are three elements of a tort law including, wrongful conduct, harm and cause. All three elements must be proved in court to be issued as a case in tort law. There are three levels of a ‘guilty mind’; intentional, negligence and strict liability. An intentional tort is when the plaintiff wished to produce the results that followed their actions. Opposed to negligence, the wrongdoing is intended, even if the injury resulting from the actions is not intended, the initial approach was. Some examples of intentional torts are assault and battery, false (wrongful) imprisonment, trespass to chattels, trespass to land, nuisance and defamation. There are 3 common defenses to intentional torts; consent, self-defense/defense and defense of property.

Negligence is inadvertent or careless conduct causing harm, loss or injury to another. Distinct from intentional, negligent actions cause damage due to failure to act or failure to act in a reasonable manner leaving the plaintiff the burden of proof. Elements that need to be proven to be classified as ‘negligence’ are a balance of probabilities of duty, breach and damage. A few defenses to negligence are voluntary assumption of risk, illegality or voluntary participation, contributory negligence and accident.

Strict liability is responsibility imposed on a person who caused injury regardless of whether or not there was fault. Underneath liability is vicarious liability, meaning when one party is at fault of another’s actions. In cases of liability, there is damage, and classified as two types. The first being, compensatory damages and the second being punitive damages. In tort law, cases may only be brought before a judge if it is within the limitation period. In Ontario, the plaintiff has 2 years from the time of injury or the discovery of the injury to commence tort action. After 2 years has passed, the court will refuse to hear the matter.

# data[].attributes.headline
CBC - City ordered to pay damages in Negligence ca

# data[].attributes.subject
CBC - City ordered to pay damages in Negligence ca

# data[].attributes.body
Unmaintained sidewalk caused woman's fall and concussion. The city of Hamilton was found guilty for not following bylaws in maintaining a snowy sidewalk. The bylaws state, the city must clear snow and ice from sidewalks within 24 hours of winter storm event. The defendant slipped on ice that was "hidden from view by a layer of freshly fallen snow". In this case it was on the city to keep its citizens safe during all seasons but failed to due so that winter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The city of Hamilton was found guilty of negligence for not following bylaws in maintaining a snowy sidewalk.

The judgment calls for the city to pay an unspecified figure in damages to Kelly Bramer, who suffered a concussion as a result of slipping on the sidewalk. Bramer, a 49-year-old Hamilton resident, was walking along the sidewalk of Arkledun Avenue in 2009 on her way to work when she slipped and hit her head on the concrete.

Justice Stephen Glithero ruled that the city neglected to follow their own bylaws, which required the clearing of snow and ice from sidewalks within 24 hours of a winter storm event, according to a 2009 information report.

"...The City has provided no evidence that any manual winter maintenance was provided to this sidewalk since January 12, 2009, 22 days before the accident," said the ruling.

As a result, Bramer slipped on ice that was "hidden from view by a layer of freshly fallen snow," said Glithero.

A handrail at the scene also contributed to Glithero's ruling. Running alongside the sidewalk to offset the slope of the area, the ruling said the handrail had fallen into "disrepair," bending away from the sidewalk and ultimately "unusable."

Bramer had ignored the handrail, which the city argued could have prevented her fall. But Glithero said had Bramer reached for the handrail, it would have been more dangerous than just ignoring the handrail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
City ordered to pay damages in negligence case | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The city of Hamilton was found guilty of negligence for not following bylaws in maintaining a snowy sidewalk. The judgment calls for the city to pay an unspecified figure in damages to Kelly Bramer, who suffered a concussion as a result of slipping on the sidewalk.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Star - Teen sues Starbucks and Staff

# data[].attributes.subject
The Star - Teen sues Starbucks and Staff

# data[].attributes.body
This article covers a injury where a teenager  had hot water poured over her hands at the negligence of a Starbucks employee. The teen is seeking $1 million in general and special damages and legal costs. The burns suffered cause damage to her physical, mental financial abilities. “The general rule remains that the employees are not liable for what they do within the scope of their authority and on behalf of their corporation,” the lower court judge wrote. A Court of Appeal three-judge panel disagreed.
They believed the rule, in this case is in the opposite. As said by the teen's lawyers who won the case "the Court of Appeal decision is important because it clarifies that a person who is injured as a result of employee negligence is entitled to sue both an employee and employer."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Brampton teenager who alleges that a Starbucks employee negligently poured scalding hot water on her hands, causing severe and permanent injuries, can proceed with her lawsuit against the U.S.-based coffee giant, the store manager and barista, Ontario's top court has ruled.

Abigail Sataur, with her father acting as her litigation guardian, is suing Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., a Brampton store manager and the barista for negligence over an alleged incident that took place on March 14, 2015.

Sataur was in the Starbucks outlet at 52 Quarry Edge Dr. in Brampton when she asked the barista to fill a baby bottle with warm water, according to the statement of claim filed in Superior Court of Justice. The barista is identified as Jane Doe.

"Jane Doe filled the bottle with scalding hot water and spilled the water on Abigail's hands, causing severe and permanent injuries to Abigail," the statement says. Abigail was 14 at the time and was filling the bottle for her niece.

Starbucks and its employees "failed to take reasonable or any care at all to ensure that the Plaintiff, Abigail Sataur, would be reasonably safe while attending Starbucks," and to "prevent an injury . . . which they knew or ought to have known."

The statement goes on to say Starbucks employed "incompetent servants or agents and/or staff to ensure the safety of Abigail," and failed to "instruct properly . . . their employees in proper methods and procedures to be used to regulate water temperatures and handle hot beverages."

The allegations have not been proven in court and Starbucks has not delivered a statement of defence, but "we are fully prepared to address the claims in that case as we believe our partners (employees) are not at fault," a spokesperson wrote in email to the Star.

The teen, now 16, is seeking $1 million in general and special damages and legal costs. According to the statement of claim, the injuries to her hands and arms, requiring future hospitalization and rehabilitation, have also caused headaches, mood changes and depression, and have left her "unable to participate in recreational, household and athletic activities."

Last year, a judge agreed to a request from Starbucks to strike the statement of claim against the manager and barista because it did not disclose a "reasonable cause of action" against either individual. The judge also sided with Starbucks that naming the pair was an abuse of process.

"The general rule remains that the employees are not liable for what they do within the scope of their authority and on behalf of their corporation," the lower court judge wrote.

A Court of Appeal three-judge panel disagreed.

"Respectfully, the general rule is the opposite," they wrote in a ruling released Dec. 22. "There is no general rule in Canada that an employee acting in the course of her employment cannot be sued personally for breaching a duty of care owed to a customer," said the judges, who also rejected there had been an abuse of process.

They awarded $15,000 in appeal legal costs and $2,500 for the lower court costs.

Toronto lawyer Gavin MacKenzie, who argued the case with legal partner and daughter Brooke MacKenzie, and Douglas Strelshik, Sataur's personal injury lawyer, said the Court of Appeal decision is important because it clarifies that a person who is injured as a result of employee negligence is entitled to sue both an employee and employer.

"Some lawyers and judges, including the motion judge in the Starbucks case, are of the view that if you are holding the employer responsible for the injuries you shouldn't be allowed to also name as a defendant the employees whose negligence caused the injury. The Court of Appeal held that that is not the law."

A practical implication of the decision is the plaintiff now has a right to examine for discovery, before trial, the employees and a Starbucks representative, he added. "Where the employer is a large corporation such as Starbucks, which is likely insured, the plaintiff is unlikely to enforce any judgment obtained against the employees."

Courts are no stranger to hot beverage litigation.

Last year, a provincial court judge in British Columbia dismissed a lawsuit filed by Shayla Williams who sued Starbucks after buying a cup of tea at a drive-through. After a short drive, the lid popped off, causing second- and third-degree burns that the plaintiff attributed to a defective lid, its improper placement and the tea being hotter than it should have been.

"Despite my sympathy for the claimant who clearly suffered extremely painful burns, it is my judgment that she has not proven her case," the judge wrote.

Williams's lawyer, James Mandick, told the CBC he knew suing Starbucks would be an uphill battle. "All over North America, they're very successful at defending these claims," Mandick said.

Also last year, a Denver, Colo., woman sued Starbucks over hot tea she claimed disfigured her and killed her dog. That lawsuit, which attracted extensive media attention, was quietly terminated in December. The case was without merit and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it without any terms from Starbucks, the company's Canadian spokesperson told the Star.

In 1994, a U.S. jury awarded an Albuquerque, N.M., woman nearly $3 million in almost entirely punitive damages after she spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald's, sparking heated debate about personal responsibility and the prevalence of frivolous lawsuits.

But that infamous case, explored in an acclaimed 2011 documentary, turned out to be "popularly misunderstood," Brooke MacKenzie wrote in email.

"As I understand it, in that case the plaintiff was willing to settle for $20,000 just to cover her medical costs - which were significant, because she had third-degree burns over six per cent of her body, largely in her groin area, and had to undergo skin grafting treatment," she wrote.

Because McDonald's offered no more than $800, she had no choice but to go to court to obtain compensation.

"The jury found McDonald's was recklessly disregarding the known risk of burns from the excessively hot temperature at which they served their coffee; McDonald's had known for years that their coffee was so hot that it would burn someone seriously if spilled, and had settled numerous previous burn lawsuits."

Such high punitive damages awards are unheard of in Canada, and no punitive damages are being sought in the Starbucks case, MacKenzie added in a followup email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court gives Ontario teen green light to sue both Starbucks and staff over scalding incident

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Brampton teenager who alleges that a Starbucks employee negligently poured scalding hot water on her hands, causing severe and permanent injuries, can proceed with her lawsuit against the U.S.-based coffee giant, the store manager and barista, Ontario's top court has ruled.