# data[].attributes.body
This is the word document containing the required questions to be completed.

# data[].attributes.body
This article does a very good job of defining the elements. Typically we would put duty and breach of duty together when explaining so that there are four elements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In order for a plaintiff to win a lawsuit for negligence, he or she must prove all of the " elements." For instance, one of the elements is "damages," meaning the plaintiff must have suffered damages (injuries, loss, etc.) in order for the defendant to be held liable. So, even if you can prove that the defendant was negligent, you may not be successful in your negligence lawsuit if that negligence caused you no harm.

When deciding on a verdict in a negligence case, juries are instructed to compare the facts, testimony, and evidence in determining whether the following elements were satisfied:

These five elements of a negligence case are explained in greater detail below.
1. Duty
The outcome of some negligence cases depends on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff. A duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff requiring the defendant to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff. A judge, rather than a jury, ordinarily determines whether a defendant owed a duty of care to a plaintiff, and will usually find that a duty exists if a reasonable person would find that a duty exists under a particular set of circumstances.

For example, if a defendant was loading bags of grain onto a truck and struck a child with one of the bags, the first question that must be resolved is whether the defendant owed a duty to the child. If the loading dock was near a public place, such a public sidewalk, and the child was merely passing by, then the court may be more likely to find that the defendant owed a duty to the child. On the other hand, if the child were trespassing on private property and the defendant didn't know that the child was present at the time of the accident, then the court would be less likely to find that the defendant owed a duty.
2. Breach of Duty
It's not enough for a plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed him or her or a duty; the plaintiff must also prove that the defendant breached his or duty to the plaintiff. A defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. Unlike the question of whether a duty exists, the issue of whether a defendant breached a duty of care is decided by a jury as a question of fact. Thus, in the example above, a jury would decide whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in handling the bags of grain near the child.
3. Cause in Fact
Under the traditional rules in negligence cases, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions were the actual cause of the plaintiff's injury. This is often referred to as "but-for" causation, meaning that, but for the defendant's actions, the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred. The child in the example above could prove this element by showing that but for the defendant's negligent act of tossing the grain, the child would not have suffered harm.
4. Proximate Cause
Proximate cause relates to the scope of a defendant's responsibility in a negligence case. A defendant in a negligence case is only responsible for those harms that the defendant could have foreseen through his or her actions. If a defendant has caused damages that are outside of the scope of the risks that the defendant could have foreseen, then the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages.

In the example described above, the child would prove proximate cause by showing that the defendant could have foreseen the harm that would have resulted from the bag striking the child. On the contrary, if the harm is something more remote to the defendant's act, then the plaintiff will be less likely to prove this element. Assume that when the child is struck with the bag of grain, the child's bicycle on which he was riding is damaged.

Three days later, the child and his father drive to a shop to have the bicycle fixed. On their way to the shop, the father and son are struck by another car. Although the harm to the child and the damage to the bicycle may be within the scope of the harm that the defendant risked by his actions, the defendant probably could not have foreseen that the father and son would be injured on their way to having the bicycle repaired three days later. Hence, the father and son wouldn't be able to satisfy the element of proximate causation.
5. Damages
A plaintiff in a negligence case must prove a legally recognized harm, usually in the form of physical injury to a person or to property. It's not enough that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The failure to exercise reasonable care must result in actual damages to a person to whom the defendant owed a duty of care.
Get a Free Legal Evaluation of Your Negligence Claim
Even if you're confident that all the elements of a negligence case are present, it takes a skilled lawyer to make a compelling case and ultimately win. And since you can have your claim evaluated absolutely free, there's no risk in consulting with an attorney if you have been injured as a result of someone else's negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In order for a plaintiff to win a lawsuit for negligence, he or she must prove all of the " elements." For instance, one of the elements is "damages," meaning the plaintiff must have suffered damages (injuries, loss, etc.) in order for the defendant to be held liable.

# data[].attributes.body
This website gives an overview of all of the Torts involved in Canada. This helps a lot when it comes to learning about the different terms that are used to describe Tort.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
​Tort law provides compensation for people who have been injured, or whose property has been damaged by the wrongdoing of others.

Tort law is a cornerstone of the Canadian legal system and provides compensation for people who have been injured or whose property has been damaged by the wrongdoing of others. A vast area of private law that has evolved to keep up with technology and social issues, tort law has been used by a growing number of victims of crime to help them seek justice against perpetrators. It has also been at the centre of recent high profile Canadian cases involving the abuse of children, and the liability of governments for failing to protect citizens from contagious diseases and from defective medical devices.

What is a Tort?

The word tort comes from the Latin tortum, meaning "wrong, injustice." The purpose of tort law is not to punish wrongdoers but to provide damages to victims as compensation for their losses. It affects nearly every walk of life, from manufacturers and property owners to pet owners, drivers, doctors and bartenders, all of whom have a duty of care.

Although most tort law is judge-made, some originates in statutes which vary from province to province. Unlike criminal law, which involves the state, tort law is used by individuals to claim compensation. It also differs from contract law, where parties have agreed to certain terms or conditions.

Intentional Torts

Intentional torts are the most serious. They are deliberate acts intended to injure others, or to interfere with another person's rights. A common one is battery. This can involve violence with the intent to injure, but also includes acts which although not intended to injure, still interfere with a person's autonomy and the right to security and dignity. Every medical treatment, for example, performed without the consent of the patient is considered battery, regardless of the doctor's intent to provide the best care possible. The law respects the absolute right of all competent persons to decide what medical treatment they will accept or refuse.

Other intentional torts include assault and false imprisonment. A person can also sue for acts intended to cause emotional distress. Sexual or workplace harassment can fall under this tort and, in these cases, a court may award extra or punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer.

When a person is injured by a criminal act, the offender may be prosecuted under the Criminal Code, as well as sued through civil court for damages. Tort law is increasingly used by victims of sexual assaults as some may find it is therapeutic to seek damages even when there is a criminal prosecution. Often criminals do not have the funds to pay tort judgments, so the recovery of damages is available through victim compensation funds in most provinces and territories.

People who commit an intentional tort may plead that they had a valid defence, such as the victim's consent, self-defence, defence of property, necessity or lawful authority. For example, the defence of consent can protect athletes from being sued for physical contact, as long as the contact is an ordinary part of the game. As well, numerous statutes such as the Criminal Code allow the police to detain and imprison people, or to seize their property. If any of these defences are accepted by the court, the action under tort law will be dismissed.

Torts can involve damage to property as well as injuries to people. Trespassing falls under intentional torts, as does conversion, which is interfering with another person's goods, and detinue, which is refusing to return something belonging to another person.

Another important tort action is defamation, which protects a person's reputation from false and defamatory material - either spoken or in published or broadcast form.

Torts of Negligence

People are more frequently injured because of the carelessness rather than the deliberate acts of others. This is the tort of negligence, the most important of the modern torts. The famous English case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, in which a manufacturer of a soft drink carelessly allowed a snail to crawl into a bottle, where it decomposed and caused the plaintiff to become ill, established the principle that everyone is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to ensure that others will not be injured because of careless conduct, save for a few exceptional situations.

Everyone must live up to the standards of the "reasonable person," an important concept of the negligence tort. Based on objective guidelines and built on precedents, the standard allows the court to adapt to the changing circumstances of what might be considered "reasonable." Similarly, if people through their own negligence cause or contribute to their own injuries, they will be held at least partly responsible for their damages under the contributory negligence defence.

Negligence expanded significantly in the 20th century and now covers a wide range of accidents. Bar owners, for example, can be held liable if they fail to ensure that their intoxicated customers take reasonable care when going home. Drivers can be held responsible if they do not ensure that the occupants of their cars are wearing seat belts, or if they allow incompetent persons to drive their cars. Courts are reluctant, however, to hold public authorities liable for their negligent decisions, as opposed to their negligent acts. It is felt best that decisions which raise core policy issues involving the exercise of political discretion be left to elected officials, and not be second guessed by the courts.

Compensation

If found liable, wrongdoers must compensate victims in full for losses. Compensation will not only include medical bills not covered by health insurance, lost past and future income and the costs of future care, but also awards for pain and suffering and the loss of the enjoyment of life. If a tort causes death, the estate and dependants are entitled to seek compensation from the tortfeasor (the person guilty of tort) for their financial losses. Dependants are entitled to be compensated for the loss of support which they would have obtained from the person who was killed. Some provinces such as Alberta, allow the recovery of damages for the sorrow and grief of survivors. Estates are limited to recovering only monetary losses caused by the death, such as funeral expenses.

Strict Liability

Certain activities are so fraught with risk that compensation to those injured is awarded without the need to establish the defendant's fault. These are strict liability torts. According to the English case of Rylands v. Fletcher, anyone who brings something onto his land which is not naturally there is strictly liable if the thing escapes and injures someone. People are strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals they keep, or even by domestic pets if they are known to be dangerous, or by fires they have started. However, in view of the expansion of negligence law, these strict liability actions are relatively rare.

One important example of strict liability is vicarious liability. This is where an employer is liable for the torts committed by its employees, during the course of their employment. Since employers usually have liability insurance and more resources to pay judgments than their employees, vicarious liability is frequently pleaded.

Land and Product Liability

There are other important torts. A person who unreasonably interferes with another's use and enjoyment of land will be liable for a private nuisance. Under the law of occupier's liability, everyone who occupies a building owes a duty of care to those who visit and who are injured on the premises.

Manufacturers are responsible under the law of products' liability to those who are injured by products which are negligently designed, manufactured, or marketed. The law imposes upon manufacturers the obligation to advise consumers of risks associated with the use of the product. In recent years, this law has resulted in manufacturers being held liable for failing to inform women of the side effects of birth control pills, and of the risk that breast implants can rupture, causing serious problems for the patients using them.

Economic Torts

By virtue of the economic or business torts, people will be held liable if they wrongfully interfere with the economic interests of others. There are a number of these torts, such as inducing breach of contract, intimidation, and conspiracy. Using unlawful means to prevent a third party from economically benefitting a specific person can also lead to a successful claim by the person who was harmed.

Fault-Finding

Of course, many injuries result from pure accident, and if the victim cannot prove that the person who caused the accident acted wrongfully, he will not be entitled to any compensation, despite his own innocence, unless this falls under one of the strict liability torts. This has been strongly condemned by critics of negligence law, who consider it unfair that persons who cannot prove that their injuries resulted from someone else's negligence are left to bear their losses on their own.

Many accidents occur either at work or on the road. Because of their frequency and tort law's inability to compensate adequately all those injured at work, every province has workers' compensation legislation, allowing workers to receive compensation without the need to establish fault. Those who are covered by workers' compensation are not entitled to sue in tort.

Many Canadian provinces have enacted similar legislation for highway traffic accidents and have replaced tort law with "no fault" compensation schemes. There is a lively debate about the extent to which these schemes ought to be enlarged at the expense of the traditional tort-law process.

New Torts

Recently new torts have emerged. Invasion of privacy has gained in importance, and has been recognized as a new tort action by some courts. Older torts, such as negligence, are applied increasingly to professional groups such as lawyers, architects and engineers to force them to live up to higher standards of competence, even with regard to people who are not their clients but who can be affected by their negligence. As well, negligence law has allowed bystanders who suffer nervous shock as a result of witnessing terrible accidents involving relatives, to sue for their damages caused by the traumatic experience. Rescuers who are injured in attempting to help those in perilous situations can sue the negligent person who created the emergency.

The law of negligence has even begun to relax its traditional reluctance against requiring people to assist others, or to prevent harm from being caused to them. There is a growing list of exceptions to the rule that one need not assist others in peril.

People are also held accountable not only for their negligent acts but for misleading advice which may cause loss to others. This development relates to the expanding use of tort law to deal with negligence occurring within commercial or contractual relationships.

Even government officials and agencies are being held liable in tort for damages they cause the public in carrying out their functions. Those who support tort law have applauded these developments, arguing that the civil remedy in tort has been and can continue to be valuable to citizens fighting against more powerful elements of our society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
​Tort law provides compensation for people who have been injured, or whose property has been damaged by the wrongdoing of others. Tort law is a cornerstone of the Canadian legal system and provides compensation for people who have been injured or whose property has been damaged by the wrongdoing of others.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the official Negligence act layout in 1990.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Duhaime.org, this is the legal definition of negligence for Tort

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The legal definition of Negligence is A breach of a duty to take care.

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes a lawsuit where the police are being charged with negligence. I appreciate this article because it shows the public that nobody (even police) are exempt from being convicted of negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OTTAWA-The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision, broke new legal ground yesterday by ruling suspects can sue police investigators for negligence in cases of shoddy detective work.

In a judgment that said police officers are not immune from civil liability, the court set its eyes squarely on combating wrongful convictions and institutional racism, requiring police to face the same legal consequences as other professionals who fail in their public duties.

"Police officers are entitled to exercise their discretion as they see fit, provided that they stay within the bounds of reasonableness," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

The standard police must meet is not "perfection," said McLachlin. "Minor errors or errors in judgment" will not necessarily subject police to civil liability, said the court in rejecting arguments that allowing civil actions for negligence would open the floodgates to lawsuits against police and have a chilling effect on law enforcement.

Until now, for the most part in Canada, people who are suspects, as opposed to crime victims, could not sue police for simple negligence. (Jane Doe, a victim of the so-called Balcony Rapist, successfully sued Toronto police for negligence and was awarded $220,000 in 1998.)

The exceptions were Quebec where the civil code has for about 50 years permitted such claims, and Ontario as a result of an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling involving Ottawa police in the late 1990s.

But this is the first time the high court has issued its interpretation of what legal remedies common law provides plaintiffs.

The ruling will apply across Canada.

The high court said it was not enough that plaintiffs only have access to "malicious prosecution" claims or claims of false arrest or false imprisonment, where the requirement is to show bad faith or malicious intent.

The ruling was "personally very disappointing" for Jason George Hill, the Hamilton man who brought the case to the Supreme Court. The ruling means Hill, an aboriginal man now in his 40s, who was exonerated on a bank robbery charge that cost him 20 months behind bars, lost his bid to sue the Hamilton-Wentworth police.

McLachlin wrote that Hill was the victim of an "unfortunate series of events," but the actions of Hamilton-Wentworth police didn't amount to negligence.

Another man, Francisco Sotomayer, was ultimately convicted in the case.

The court was unanimous in ruling against Hill based on the facts of his case. They split 6-3, however, on the broader issue of whether the public should be able to sue at all in such circumstances.

McLachlin, writing for the majority, concluded suspects can sue under common-law tests of negligence - a finding that could have a major impact because it's easier to prove negligence than it is to prove malicious prosecution, the main alternative available to the public.

"The existing remedies for wrongful conviction are incomplete and may leave a victim of negligent police investigation without legal recourse," she wrote. "To deny a remedy (on grounds of negligence) is, quite literally, to deny justice."

Hill's legal team hailed the ruling as a "huge victory for Canadians and the Canadian legal system."

"We're now at the forefront of all common-law jurisdictions - we're ahead of the Americans, the English and the Australians - in holding police accountable for shoddy investigation work," said lawyer Sean Dewart. "When that leads to a wrongful conviction, the police will have to account for themselves. And that's new. That's groundbreaking. And that's a great thing."

Julian Falconer, who intervened in the case on behalf of the advocacy group, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, said the judgment is "of huge significance."

"It puts to rest the notion that somehow police in the pursuit of crime should be immune from the same level of accountability all other public officials are subject to."

But David Boghosian, the lawyer for the Hamilton officers involved, said the ruling was "disappointing" and will create uncertainty for police.

"It confirms police can be sued for simple negligence when historically in Canada and elsewhere in the common-law world, police were insulated by the requirement that bad faith or improper purpose be shown before they could be found liable. So that barrier has been torn down," Boghosian said.

On the other hand, he said, the court set such a high standard for plaintiffs that it will be difficult to prove their case.

Boghosian and intervenors like the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police had warned it could have a "chilling effect" on police if officers feared they would be held civilly liable.

That argument found some sympathy with the three judges who dissented. Justices Louise Charron, Michel Bastarache and Marshall Rothstein said it would be wrong to give legal weight to claims of "negligent investigation."

Charron argued that society has an interest in police aggressively investigating crimes, and "a suspect will always suffer some harm from being targeted in an investigation, even if ultimately exonerated."

Charron said saddling police with a potential civil liability would "inevitably pull the police away from targeting" individuals as suspects and lead to an "overly cautious approach" by police.

McLachlin, on behalf of the majority, including Justices Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fis and Rosalie Abella, conceded the ruling may cause police to act more carefully.

"However, this is not necessarily a bad thing," she wrote.

In the case of Hill, arrested by police as the "plastic bag bandit" responsible for 10 robberies in late 1994 and early 1995, the court found police did not act so egregiously as to be found civilly liable.

Police had acted on a Crime Stoppers tip, eyewitness evidence, and the belief the robberies were the work of one crook. Investigators released Hill's photo to the media, and conducted a photo line-up for witnesses that consisted of Hill as the only aboriginal face and 11 similar looking Caucasian men.

Even after two more similar robberies occurred while Hill was in custody, and another Crime Stoppers tip suggested two Hispanic men were responsible, police dropped some, but not all of the charges. The Crown prosecuted him on one count. Hill was convicted. He appealed, and was ultimately acquitted after winning a retrial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court lets suspects sue police for negligence | The Star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OTTAWA-The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision, broke new legal ground yesterday by ruling suspects can sue police investigators for negligence in cases of shoddy detective work.

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives a more detailed look at the Donohue vs. Stevenson case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the story of how our modern law of negligence came about all because of a fizzy drink.

And a mollusc from Paisley in Scotland.

The mollusc in question was a common snail that ended its days in a bottle of ginger beer. It made legal history in the 1932 case of Donoghue v Stevenson.

It begins on an unremarkable Sunday evening on 26th August 1928. May Donoghue, a shop assistant, met a friend at the Wellmeadow cafe in Paisley, near Glasgow.

Her unnamed friend ordered and paid for a pear and ice cream ginger beer 'float' for May.

When the ginger beer was poured into her glass, it was alleged the decomposing remains of a snail dropped out of the darkened, opaque bottle.

May complained of stomach pains, and a doctor diagnosed gastroenteritis and shock.

But if you are thinking McDonalds, hot cups of coffee and big bucks compensation, think again. This is 1928.
No legal redress
In those days, the common law only acknowledged a duty of care was owed to people harmed by the negligent acts of others in specific and limited circumstances.

For example, this was the case where a contract existed between the parties, or where a manufacturer was making something dangerous, or acting fraudulently.

As the law stood, May Donoghue could not take legal action over her snail.

As May's unnamed friend had paid for the drink, it meant May had not entered into a contract with the cafe owner.

Clearly, neither May nor her friend had a contract with the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

The latter had not committed fraud. And ginger beer could hardly be described as dangerous.

To the rescue came one doughty and determined solicitor called Walter Leechman, who took up May's case.

He had already brought two cases against another drinks manufacturer, AG Barr, alleging a dead mouse had been found in a bottle of their ginger beer.

Leechman had lost both cases, but he went ahead and issued May Donoghue's writ against David Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

The case went all the way to the highest court in the land. It was heard in the House of Lords on 10th December 1931, three years after May allegedly discovered the snail.

Her counsel argued that a manufacturer who puts a product on the market in a form that does not allow the consumer to examine it before using it, is liable for any damage caused.

Remember May could not have examined her ginger beer before drinking it because the bottle was dark and opaque.

Lord Atkin of Aberdovey, one of the greatest judges of the twentieth century, was on the panel who heard the appeal.
'Love Thy Neighbour'
On 26th May 1932, he found in favour of May Donoghue and rose to give the leading judgment in the case.

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law 'You must not injure your neighbour'; and the lawyer's question: 'Who is my neighbour?' receives a restricted reply.

"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."

And with those words the modern law of negligence was born.

Lord Atkin based his judgment on the Christian principle of 'loving thy neighbour', and the parable of the Good Samaritan.

This elastic term could now be applied to almost any relationship, in any circumstances.

Among other areas, it covers personal injury, product liability, professional negligence on the part of doctors, architects and even lawyers themselves.

For many, Lord Atkin's judgment was a noble principle based upon the Gospel of Luke. For others, it went too far, giving birth to our modern compensation culture.

It has made many lawyers and insurance companies rich, but it has also seen the ill and injured compensated for losses caused by the negligent acts of others.

In the original case, David Stevenson died less than a year after the Law Lords' decision, and his estate settled May Donoghue's claim to the sum of £200.

But what, I hear you ask, of the snail itself?

Its claim to fame was that it launched a million lawsuits. And it gave power to the modern consumer.
Ginsters' snail
In 2008, 21-year-old Simon Enticknap from Basingstoke bit into a Ginsters chicken and mushroom slice and found....a snail.

Even though he avoided eating it, Ginsters apologized immediately, and sent £25 in compensation.

The speed of their response was down to the Paisley snail.

But to this day, no-one knows for sure if there ever really was a snail in May Donoghue's bottle of ginger beer.

Clive Coleman's The Cases That Changed Our World is on BBC Radio 4 on Sunday 22 November at 2245 and Wednesday 25 November at 2045. Or listen again via the BBC iPlayer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The legal case of the snail found in ginger beer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the story of how our modern law of negligence came about all because of a fizzy drink. And a mollusc from Paisley in Scotland. The mollusc in question was a common snail that ended its days in a bottle of ginger beer. It made legal history in the 1932 case of Donoghue v Stevenson.

# data[].attributes.body
This gives people a visual representation of what the four elements of negligence are. It is clear that the employer of the construction was responsible for the work so he is the one who must give compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
This little chart gives a general idea of how a negligence case goes from an accident happening to getting compensation

# data[].attributes.body
These are some terms used to create a negligence case.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought this was a very cute video about one of the first Tort negligence cases that allowed negligence to become a part of Tort. Without this case, the negligence part of tort may have not been added until years later or maybe even not at all.

# data[].attributes.headline
Episode 4.1: An Introduction to Negligence

# data[].attributes.subject
Episode 4.1: An Introduction to Negligence

# data[].attributes.body
In this video, it talks about negligence and the differences between the different types of tort law and how they vary. It can be confusion to try and differentiate between the tort laws but this video makes it a little bit easier to understand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Center for Innovation in Legal Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Episode 4.1: An Introduction to Negligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this episode, Prof. Wiley gives us a brief introduction to negligence. Narration by Jackie Morrison, instructional design by moi.

# data[].attributes.body
This video tells us a little bit about some of the types of negligence that happens and some examples to go along with it. This will help people to have a better understanding of what negligence is, in a way that is not all legal terms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Center for Innovation in Legal Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
McDonald 's Coffee Case & How Corporations Used

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Contract Law Introduction & Offer Part Preview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The TORT LAW project is a corporate video that was created for use as an educational supplement to a series of Legal textbooks. This series of videos was produced by James Huffman and Indie City Entertainment for an established legal publishing company. This video features Diana Hart as the Attorney and Tricia Pierce as "Pat," the new hire.