Business Law

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Question 1
Issue
Whether the delivery driver would be held liable for the commission of negligence by
hitting a pedestrian while discharging his duty.
Rule
In Ryan v. Victoria (City) (1999), 234 N.R. 201 (SCC) Negligence has been defined by
the Supreme Court of Canada as a conduct which creates a harm risk that is of objectively
unreasonable nature which includes intentional as well as unintentional actions, even the lack of
action. People usually have a duty of ensuring the fact that their actions are not exposed to other
people which may constitute unreasonable harm risk. This duty is called the “duty of care”. A
plaintiff would be entitled successfully in negligence action if three factors are established by
him to the court’s satisfaction, which are, there must be a duty of care; there must be existence of
a breach of such duty and damage has been resulted from such breach of duty.
In the Quebec Act 1774, negligence has been apprehended within the civil liability and it
has been laid in ¶1457 as, every person’s duty of being abided by the conduct rules of not
causing injury to other, which is lying upon him as per the circumstances, law or usages. Where
a person fails to perform his duty, he would be held responsible for any injury which has been
caused by him to any other person and would also be liable for the reparation of such injury, be it
bodily, material or moral in nature. A person may also be held liable to the reparation for the

BUSINESS LAW2
injury which is caused by the fault or act of another to any other person, or for the act of the
things in such person’s custody.
This can be supported with the famous English landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson
[1932] UKHL 100, where the House of Lords laid down the modern foundation for tort laws by
establishing the general principles related to duty of care.
The Canadian law lays down the various kinds of negligence on the basis of the
seriousness and type of incident. Gross negligence generally implies blatant disregard for the
safety or the consequences of others. Regular negligence is generally considered as the failure of
being careful. Criminal negligence is the reckless disregard or the wanton for the safety or lives
of other persons.
Application
In this provided scenario, a delivery driver at the time of performing his duty to complete
the daily route approached an intersection wherein the signal was green which allows him to go
further, he saw a pedestrian coming in front of his truck out of nowhere, which forced the driver
to brake the vehicle suddenly but even after his attempt of stopping the truck he failed to stop at
the right time and caused the pedestrian some serious injuries. A person is said to have
committed the tort of negligence when he fails in exercising the duty of care at the time of
discharging his duty. In this provided scenario, the delivery driver while performing his duty
have taken proper duty of care, he continued to drive his vehicle because the signal was green
and allowed him to go further, thus the principle laid down in the Ryan v. Victoria (City) (1999),
234 N.R. 201 (SCC) case would not be applicable here.