Negligence

Wrongful conduct – duty of care exists + breach of that duty of care

duty of care – reasonable foreseeability of injury to others + persons close enough for injury

breach of duty of care – not meeting a standard of care that a reasonable person should keep

For causation – cause in fact (intentional torts) direct connection between wrongful conduct to
defendant and the harm caused. Need to trace back the chain of causation. for unintentional torts,
cause in law.

General test for causation is the but for test, which does not require that the defendant’s negligence be
the only cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Proximate cause, If you can trace your chain of causation forward
so that you can say it was reasonably foreseeable at the time that the defendant committed the
wrongful act that this plaintiff would suffer this kind of harm, then there is proximate cause, even if
extent of damage occurs cannot be foreseen, as long as harm is reasonably foreseeable in general way.
Hughes v Lord Advocate.

Unlike in intentional torts where harm is presumed once wrongful conduct is proved, in negligence,
plaintiff has to prove real harm caused by defendant’s wrongful conduct. Legally recognized interest is
actual harm recognized. It includes, safety and integrity of a person’s own body, personal possessions,
reputation and real property. Not for emotional distress (Heighington v Ontario) but for nervous shock
(Healy v Lakeridge Health corp)

Tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him – smith v leach brain & co man burned on lip by molten metal
and caused cancer and died and widow had to be compensated.

Proof of negligence

In negligence, burden of proof is on plaintiff. standard of proof that plaintiff to meet is balance of
probabilities. 2 kinds of proof, direct evidence (documentary and eyewitness) and indirect or
circumstantial evidence (3 requirements, 1st whatever inflicted the damage must have been under sole
management and control of defendant. 2nd occurrence must something that would not happened
without negligence, 3rd there must be no evidence as to why or how the occurrence took place). Res ipsa
loquitor – the thing speaks of itself.

If doctor treats something without consent, the actions od doctor will amount to battery, not
negligence. White v turner. Barrister immunity rejected Demarco v Ungaro. Hercules mgmnt v E&Y –
formula to be followed in establishing duty of care in negligent statements.