Obligations extra-contractuelles

OUTLINE
Obligations Extra-Contractuelles
Prof. Marie-Claude Prémont
Winter 2006 9. Public Authorities 6
Barratt c. Corp. of North Vancouver [cml] [judiciary only review
policy implementation] 7
Prud'homme c. Prud'homme [cvl] [CCQ = droit commun ; defamation;
cml defense not apply] 8
10. Damages: Compensatory and Punitive Damages 10
Compensatory Damages (Restitutio in Integrum) 10
Punitive/Exemplary Damages 10
Victim's Obligation to minimize the prejudice (cml + cvl) 10
Augustus c. Gossett [cvl] [factors in indemnification of moral
prejudice] 10
Corriveau c. Pelletier [cvl] [girl-nurse scars, moderation of
quantum of damages] 11
Type of Prejudices 13
11. Causation 14
11.1. Proof on Balance of Probabilities : legal and factual
presumptions 14
Barrett v. Chelsea Hospital Mgmt [cml] [NOT sufficient proof for
causation] 15
Gburek c. Cohen [cvl] [sufficient proof, rebuttable presumption of
fault] 16
McGhee c. National Coal Board [cml] [sufficient proof, increases
risk, inference of causation] 16
Smith c. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [cml] [molten metal agent in
causing cancer] 17
Farrell v. Snell [cml] [medical malpractice: indirect proof allow
inference of causality] 18
Walker c. York Finch Hospital [cml] [negligence materially
contribute to injury] 19
11.2. Indeterminate Tortfeasor 21
11.2.1. Common Fault 21
Ginn c. Sisson [cvl] [common fault, identify 1 boy on factual
presumption] 21
Morin c. Blais [cvl] [infraction of norms, common fault] 22
Cook c. Lewis [cml] [common fault, burden shifts, both hunters
liable] 22
11.2.2. Contribution & Market Share Thesis 23
Sindell c. Abbott Laboratories [cml] [negligent defs bear cost by
market share thesis] 24
11.2.3. Multiple Tortfeasors 24
A. Solidarity (Equal Conditions) 25
B. Efficient/Adequate Cause (sine qua non) 27
C. Immediate Cause 27
12. Defenses 29
12.1. Victim's Fault 29
Comparative Negligence 29
Contributory Negligence (old cml doctrine) 32
12.2. Assumption of the Risk 33
Woodley v. Metropolitan Railway [cml] ["voluntarily" assented to
risk of RR track] 33
Price c. Roy [cvl] [iced bridge, no voluntary assent] 34
Lambert v Lastoplex [cml] [manufacturer liable where not detail
risk to consumer] 34
Birch v Thomas [cml] [proper notice, thus Plf assumed risk] 35
Roy c. École d'escalade [cvl] [inherently dangerous, assume risk,
but prove negligence] 36
12.3. Common Employment (Fellow-Servant) (old cml) 37
Hall v. Johnson and another [cml] [employer not liable for
underlooker injuring miner] 37
13. SPECIAL REGIME : Work Accidents 38
13.1. History: Crisis of Civil Liability at the turn of the century 38
Report of the Wainwright Commission, 1909 [judges ask legislators
to remedy the inequity] 38
Tunc, La Responsabilité Civile, "19e et 20e siècles" 38
J.C. Lamothe, Responsabilité du patron dans les accidents du travail
(1905) 38
MC Prémont, "François Gény et les enjeux de la resp civile" 39
Historique de la transformation des régimes d'assurance 40
Les employeurs eux-mêmes demandent changement au régime fondé sur la
risque 41
Transformation : Faute ( Risque 41
Mutation du régime juridique : assistance/charité ( protection
légale 41
13.2. Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases 41
Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases 42
Processus de réclamation (Me Katherine Lippel) 43
Vincent & Co. Inc. c. Gallo [cvl] [Court not have jurisdiction to
hear case] 43
Chaput c. STCUM [cvl] [a. 28 legal presumption of employment
injury] 44
Succ. de Guillemette c. J.M. Asbestos [cvl] [a. 29 legal
presumption occupational disease] 45
14. SPECIAL REGIME : Auto Accidents 47
Automobile Insurance Act 47
Civil Liability 48
T. Rousseau-Houle, « Le régime québecois d'assurance-automobile,
vingt ans après » (1998) 49
S.D. Sugarman, "Québec's Comprehensive Auto No-Fault Scheme and the
Failure of any of the United States to Follow" (1998) 49
D. Gardner, "Comparer l'incomparable: les indemnité pour préjudice
corporel en droit commun et dans la Loi sur l'assurance automobile,"
(1998) 50
"Deux Millions de Chauffeurs à risque?" Le Devoir (2003) 50
Controverse. Le Principe du no fault. (2003) 50
15. Charter Issues: where « droit commun » and strict liability meet
51
Beliveau St-Jacques c Fed. [cvl] [civil immunity bars action for
exemplary damages] 51
16. Other Sources of ECO (1458) 53
Cie immobilière Viger c Giguère [cvl] [unjustified enrichment in
qc cvl] 54
April 2000 Exam 58
CCLC-CCQ 58
SAAQ 60
Mis-feasance/Non-feasance 62
Fault 63
Risk 64
Work Accident 65 REVIEW Civil standard of proof : on the balance of probabilities
. applies to all elements: prejudice, causality, etc Causality
. ex: Snell: here, all elements clear, except that impossible to
demonstrate the cause scientifically. thus, judge proceeds by proof by
factual presumption: there was an error (ie, not stopping the
operation after the hemhorrage), that could cause precisely this risk,
thus accepts the proof on the factual presumption
. ex: Centre Hospitalier : if the doctor had come, would not have been
able to save patient. thus lacking element of causality, even though
the fault was clear.
. presumption: make an inference from a known fact to an unknown fact
(CCQ ___)
. ex: Walker: even in complex situation, systemic phenomenon Fault
. standard of reasonable person (same in cvl & cml): not demand
perfection, objective standard, may depend on professional skills
. cml: fault not valid against everyone, only valid against those to
whom owe a duty of care
o cml: ie, Donoghue: neighbor = those to whom owe duty of care
o cvl: everyone is your neighbor, fault valid against all persons
to whom caused a direct & immediate prejudice
. fault's connection with other elements:
Duty of care
. ex: Palsgraf: fault clear, but no duty of care.
Prejudice
. cvl: prejudice direct & immediate result of fault, even if
unforeseeable (1611)
. cml: foreseeability of resulting injury, which may be direct or
indirect (Wagon Mound #1)
Causality
. ex: Palsgraf: Andrews' dissent: RR cie had duty of care to all
passengers. Palsgraf's injury as direct result of RR cie's negligence. **Public Authorities**
. ex: Prud'homme c Prud'homme: public discourse. action in
defamation based on 1457. (cml : intentional tort of defamation).
. Qc Act had divided private & public law, BUT, here have meeting of
private & public law (compares Laurentide under CCLC)
. CCQ = droit commun. not using cml to say that CCQ applies, but CCQ
itself, le droit commun, says rules of private law apply to public
authorities.
. ex: Barratt : political decisions not subject to judicial review for
civil liability, only the implementation of the policy Ceiling for Non-Pecuniary Damages
. non-pecuniary damages may or may not be limited to simply moral
prejudices
. restitutio in integrum: applies to pecuniary damages only
. cml: pecuniary and non-pecuniary injury
. cvl: moral prejudice
. material, bodily injury ( pecuniary + non-pecuniary prejudice
ex: Defamation
. ceiling not apply to non-pecuniary injury re: defamation
. ex: lose your job. have moral prejudice ( pecuniary loss (ie, no more
salary) + non-pecuniary moral prejudice (ie, can't sleep at night) Joint liability : operates to the benefit of the victim "refonte du CCQ," and not reform of CCQ
. ex of refonte: le fait autonome des choses was not in CCLC, but yes in
CCQ
. Fitzpatrick J. in Doucet
. ie, reflecting the actual state of the law
. DO A SEARCH FOR "RISK" or "RISK THEORY" in all notes to consolidate
all aspects punitive damages = exemplary damages Charter and Work Accidents
. Prémont : should be mechanisms to intervene right away, and prevent
the lesion prof from happening in the first place. HERE, victim
should approach the Commission of Human Rights to stop the sexual
harrassment before the injury materializes.
. once the lesion occurs, and can be qualified as lesion prof, then the
Charter action is barred.
. ex: Beliveau St-Jacques: the physical & psychological incapacity to
work was at stake, which was a result of the sexual harrassment.
thus, sexual harrassment itself was not at issue, "just" the injury
suffered. Defenses: Accepting Risks
. does NOT apply to work accidents Work & Car Accidents
. definitions important (work: 28, 29, 30) (car: bodily injury)
. principle
Examen décembre Question 1 Question 1A
pollution d'automobile
. victimes : personnes âgées ( plus fragiles (thin skull rule applies
in cml & cvl)
. recours collectif (les demandeurs)
. chacune des demandeurs doit démontrer tout les éléments de la preuve
. qui sont les responsables ?
o l'automobiliste ( c'est qui ?
o défendeur doit être la personne respons