Midterm 3

docx

School

Douglas College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1320

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by EarlStrawCaterpillar18

_ /10 CASE 4 _ /1 Parties - Ashish vs Bogdana _ /2 Issue - Bogdana commits the Tort of Trespass of Ashish’s Land? _ /2 Law - trespass to land: Intentional interference with land. Elements of trespass to land - acting intentionally - lack of consent - lack of legal authority (some official have authority) Vicarious liability  a form of strict liability for torts committed by another.  employer often vicariously liable of torts committed by employee in the course of employment. _ /3 Analysis - Bogdana did not committed tort of trespassing –  Bogdana did not intentionally enter Ashish’s property.  Bogdana had no consent to enter Ashish’s property.  Bogdana does not had authority to enter Ashish's property.  Bogdana caused harm by delivering package in front of the house. By law of Vicarious liability Bodgana’s Lightning Fast Delivery Services is liable for the charges. _ /2 Remedy - Ashish may claim - - Compensatory damages - Court fees -

_ /10 CASE 5 _ /1 Parties - Dyson vs Tanya _ /2 Issue - Is Tanya liable for the tort of Occupiers’s liability? _ /2 Law - Occupier’s Liability - Variations between categories eliminated in common law jurisdictions. - Standard of care no longer related to the type of visitor. General requirement to use reasonable care. - Duty to visitor applies to condition of premises and activities conducted on the premises. - Liability can be avoided by issuing warnings (hidden or unusual dangers) - - Landlord now liable for failure to repair under lease. (No duty at common law because landlord is not “occupier”). _ /3 Analysis - Tanya was the occupier of the top floor. - Tanya knew that a visitor from Dyson was coming. - Tanya knew about the faulty light and loose step. Dyson saw the light, but he was unaware about the loose step. - Tanya is at fault as she could avoided the accident by letting Dyson know about the step or could have use some warning signs. - Landlord agreed to repair the step on Monday, therefor its Tanya’s responsibility to caution the visitors. _ /2 Remedy - Tanya pays – a) Compensatory damages b) court fees

_ /10 CASE 6 _ /1 Parties - Richard Rich vs Naigle & Jente _ /2 Issue - Did Naigle & Jente breach the standard of care by carelessly preparing the statements? _ /2 Law  Negligence: carelessly causing harm to another. 3 elements: o Duty of care: to whom is the duty owed? Test for duty of care:  reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff would rely on statement.  did plaintiff rely on the statement for its intended purpose? o Standard of care: how defendant with duty must act  reasonable person test (objective test)  Professional standard is higher than mere reasonable person.  must act as reasonable professional.  no allowance for inexperience or exaggerated credentials  Compliance with approved practice or statutory standard may remove liability. o Causation did the defendants actions cause harm to the plaintiff?  factual causation, primarily question of fact, the but-for test  legal causation, primarily question of fairness, the remoteness principle. _ /3 Analysis - Naigle and Jente did breach the standard of care through Negligence. a) by not preparing the documents properly. - Duty of care- Since the statements are issued publicly for a public company. All reasonable people would agree that, All the public (potential investors) rely upon the annual report submitted by defendant. - The plaintiff did suffer damages relying on the statements, lost the value of all shares. - A professional should know his industry standards, should not use inexperience as an excuse for their negligence. - The causation exists, since the statements issued by defendant projected a Misleading image of the company, and Richard bought all the available shares because of that. _ /2 Remedy - Richar Rich can claim – a) compensatory damages b) court fees

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

CASE 4 Bogdana is an employee of Lightning Fast Delivery Services – a privately owned courier company. She delivered a package to the front door of 86 Winding Drive. In fact, she was supposed to deliver it to 68 Winding Drive. Late that night, when Ashish arrived home at 86 Winding Drive, he tripped over the box and suffered serious injuries. CASE 5 Tanya was a tenant who rented the top floor of a house owned by Kirvan. Another tenant rented the apartment on the ground floor. The two suites had separate entrances, with Tanya’s entrance leading to a set of stairs. Dyson, a vacuum salesman, telephoned Tanya and arranged to visit her apartment on Friday and to show off his company’s latest vacuum cleaner model. When he entered the building, Dyson found the staircase light was out of order. He attempted to climb the stairs in the dark and tripped on a loose step, breaking his arm. Tanya knew about the faulty light and the loose step but had not thought to warn Dyson. However, she had texted Kirvan about both defects earlier that evening, and he agreed to fix them on Monday. CASE 6 The accounting firm Naigle & Jente prepared the annual audit statement for the shareholders of Krusty Pie Inc. The report was very positive. It disclosed value in the company’s assets and it projected profitability for the company in the coming year. After reading the report, Richard Rich, a shareholder, bought up all of the available shares of Krusty Pie Inc. and obtained a controlling interest in the company. In fact, the report had not been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; the assets of the company (and therefore the shares) were worthless.

Midterm 3

Related Documents