MGMT1601 Business Law: Prepare a Civil Claim| Case of John Rogers
Facts:
John Rogers is a 45-year-old, fridge repair technician working for himself as a soleproprietor under the trade name of FridgeFixRus and lives at 19 Pigeon Cove, Springfield, Alberta with his two huskies. John is an avid hiker and skier. When not working you can find him in the mountains with his two dogs.
Laura Hanson is a freelance website designer and works out of her home at 24 Knights Drive. In October of this year she was having problems with her fridge cooler and called FridgeFixRus for service.
On October 4, 2017, John arrived at Laura’s home. The fridge cooler needing services is in the basement of Laura’s house. When Laura opened the door to the basement, she noticed that she left some boxes on the stairs that were partially blocking the way down. Laura states that she asked the technician if he wanted her to remove the boxes but the technician said that it would be alright to leave them there, but John does not remember this at all and denies Laura ever saying anything about the boxes. Laura went back to work in her office after opening the door to the basement for John.
A few minutes later, Laura heard John cursing loudly (she assumed that something was not going right with the task) and then heard a loud noise coming from the basement. She suspected that something was going on and went to the top of the stairs.
When John was descending the stairs, he tripped on one of the boxes and fell into the basement. John got up and told Laura that he was “ok”. He repaired the fridge cooler and left. When he left, Laura noticed that he was limping slightly but appeared not to be seriously injured.
After leaving Laura’s house, John did not feel very well and made his way to a drop-in clinic. Dr. Who examined John and noted that he suffered a strain in the left arm, abrasions, and bruising to his left arm and leg and overall seemed to be very distraught. The doctor also noted that John’s shirt and trousers were ruined.
Dr. Who told John that he needed at least two weeks to recover from the fall, prescribed John a variety of costly painkillers and a sedative. Dr. Who noted the anxiety that John was feeling and determined that a sedative would help him recover faster. John did not work for two weeks.
John required medical treatment, including subsequent visits to the hospital, x-rays, doctor’s visits, medication, massage therapy and physiotherapy.
John estimates that in the two weeks off work he lost about $5,000.00 in income and spent so far at least $2,000.00 on medication, massage therapy and physiotherapy and gasoline to travel to and from home to see the doctors. Doctors have told him that he may feel the effects of this injury for years to come. He already feels that he cannot spend as much time playing and walking with his two dogs and this has greatly affected his life. He has also started seeing a therapist to help him cope with his depression.
Following his recovery, John talked to a lawyer who advised him that he may sue Laura for compensation. John does not want to spend the money to hire the lawyer to prepare the civil claim and decides to do it on his own.
During his visit, the lawyer estimated John’s non-pecuniary general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life to be somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000.00. John would like to sue for the maximum amount possible in the Provincial Court of Alberta.
You are John. Prepare a Civil Claim based on the facts provided above. Then, as yourself, assess John’s claim and any defences Laura may have in a legal memorandum.
Instruction:
Please prepare a Civil Claim. Refer to “Commencing a Claim in Provincial Court Civil & Getting and Enforcing Your Judgment in Alberta”
You will use the above fact pattern and analyze it following the methodology we have studied which is summarized for you in the document called, “Negligence Review: How to Write a Prize Winning Answer to a Negligence Problem” included below.
Your memorandum need not follow classic rules or format because you are not writing an academic paper, you are preparing a legal memo. You need to include the following
- A brief description of the fact situation you will analyze
- A heading for each topic (eg: “Duty of Care”)
- A discussion of which of the three defences to negligence would apply to your situation
- A statement of your conclusion: will this law suit succeed or not?
Answer:
Memo
Step 1
The four elements required to establish negligence are
- Duty of care
- Breach of the duty of care
- Causation
- Damages
Step 2
The test required for establishing the elements are
- Duty of care –
Donoghue V Stevenson 1932 AC 522- Neighbor principle
Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 - Caparo test
- Breach of the duty of care
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467 - Objective test
Probability
Const of avoiding harm
Profession
- Causation
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 - But for test
The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 - Remoteness test
- Damages
Was the damage too remote?
Step 3
- Duty of Care
In the given situation it was foreseeable for the defendant to assume that if the boxes are not removed from the stairs the plaintiff can suffer injury thus the neighbor principle and the caparo test discussed above have been satisfied.
- The breach of the duty
In the given situation a reasonable person placed in the position of the defendant would have removed the boxes from the stairs in order to ensure that there is no injury caused to another person who uses the stairs.
A reasonable person would know that the risk of a person getting involved in an accident due to the dark stairs and the presence of boxes is high.
The plaintiff was 45 years old which is at the higher end thus the defendant would have been more careful
The professions of the parties has nothing to do with the standard of care which had to be observed by the parties in the given situation as one was a fridge repair technician and the other was a freelance website designer.
- Causation
According to the principles of the “but for” test, if the defendant In this case would have been more cautious and would have removed the boxes from the stairs the plaintiff would not have fallen if them. If the plaintiff would not have fallen the harm would not have been caused to him. Thus it can be provided in the given situation that the harm would not have been caused “but for” the actions of the plaintiff.
- Damages
In the given situation the plaintiff has suffered injuries accounting to financial losses for non employment, depression for not been able to go out with the dogs as frequently and medical treatment cost for the injury caused to him because of the negligence. The injury caused to the plaintiff are Physical, Emotional and Monitory. Thus the plaintiff has the right of claiming monitory value from the defendant through the court.
Step 4
Defenses
- Volenti non fit injuria
Was the risk voluntarily assumed? Wooldridge v Sumner & Anor [1963] 2 QB 43
It has been provided by the scenario that the defendant informed the plaintiff about the boxes and asked whether she should remove them. However the plaintiff cannot recall any such event and thus it can be provided that the plaintiff did not assume any risk Voluntarily.
- Remoteness
Was the harm too remote?
It is clear thorough the given situation that the risk of injury was not too remote thus the defense of remoteness is not applicable.
- Contributory Negligence
Did the plaintiff himself contributed to his harm - Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370
Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff was negligent himself towards the injury caused to hm. In the situation the damages to be paid to the plaintiff are proportionate by the court based on the contribution. As per the scenario there was no contributory negligence made by the plaintiff rather than the allegation provided b the defendant that she had informed the plaintiff about the danger.
References
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428
Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Donoghue V Stevenson 1932 AC 522
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370
The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467
Wooldridge v Sumner & Anor [1963] 2 QB 43
