Business Law BUSM 1285: Babiuk v. Trann Case Analysis & Decision

This case study provides an analysis of the Babiuk v. Trann case from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, focusing on a tort law dispute between two rugby players. The analysis identifies the parties involved, summarizes the material facts including conflicting testimonies, and outlines the issues before the court concerning the defense of another person and the reasonableness of force used. The decision of the court, which sided with the defendant, is delineated along with the reasoning behind it. The case study concludes with an agreement with the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of protecting individuals who intervene to save others from harm. Desklib offers this and other solved assignments to aid students in their studies.

BUSM 1285 ASSIGNMENT
2/13/2019
Student’s Name

Business Law Assignment
1
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Parties to the case.............................................................................................................................2
Summary of the facts.......................................................................................................................2
Issues................................................................................................................................................4
The decision of the case and reasoning thereof...............................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................4
References........................................................................................................................................6

Business Law Assignment
2
Introduction
Tort Law can be considered as an area of law, which provides protection to people
against the bad acts of another. The case named Babiuk v. Trann 2005 SKCA 5 is related to Tort
Law. This is an appeal. In the given report, a summary of the subjective case will be described.
In the discussion given below, parties, facts, decisions, and reasoning of the same will be
mention under separate headings.
Parties to the case
The parties of the case are two Rugby players. These two are Shawn Babiuk and Cory
Trann, where the first one is the applicant and later one is the defendant.
Summary of the facts
Shawn Babiuk and Cory Trann were the players of different teams. These teams were
used to be single at a time and because of the dividation of the same, players had some animosity
in between. Cory Trann hit Shawn Babiuk once. Shawn Babiuk (hereinafter referred to as the
applicant) initiated the proceedings against Cory Trann (hereinafter referred to as defendant). As
per the statement was given by the applicant, he was on the ground and as soon as he tried to get
up, he experienced a push. Because of this, he stepped backward. The attcak was made by
defendant which broke his (applicant’s) Jaw (Ca.vlex.com , 2019)Here the statement given by
the refereed is also necessary to have a look upon. According to the referee, he showed the

Business Law Assignment
3
defendant punching applicant in his face with some power and therefore in order to stop the
defendant he showed the red card to him. Kelly Greenwood, a teammate of applicant also
provided his statement. According to him, it was the defendant who punched the applicant. In
conjunction with this, he also saw another player of the opposite team named Soulodre, who was
helping the defendant in hitting the applicant.
In the arguments, defendant argues that he punched the applicant but for a reason. It was
the applicant who started the issue and fight (Yim, 2014).
. According to the defendant, his teammate Soludre tried to play the ball and as it is not
allowed, the referee blew the whistle. On the same time, the applicant comes ahead and stamped
downward on the upper body and face of Soludre. The applicant was not stopping and Soludre
was screaming because of pain. At this time, the defendant was also on the same ground and to
save Soludre from the attack by the applicant, he finally decided to jump on him. He took a
swing in order to stop the applicant. In support of the defendant, Soludre said the applicant was
beating him continuously and the defendant, therefore, jumped on him and hit him. Because of
the attack made by the applicant, Soludre sustained various pressure cuts on his face as the shoes
of the applicant had metal cleats. After the statements of many other players, the defendant paid
$1,500 to the applicant. However, the applicant has decided to bring the civil action in against
the defendant. A trial court considering the defense of the use of force to save a person from the
illegal and unreasonable attack, provided the decision in the favor of defendant
(Canliiconnects.org, 2014). Not happy with the decision of the trial court, the applicant made an
appeal before The Court Of Appeal For Saskatchewan.

Business Law Assignment
4
Issues
When the applicant from the original case, made an appeal in against the decision of the trial
court judge, followings issues were there before the appellate court to decide:-
 Whether in an action for damages for assault, defense of another person is a defense
available.
 If yes, whether the action of Trann to use force in favor of Soulodre was reasonable in the
given circumstances.
 What will the quantum of damage if Trann would prove as a liable person.
The decision of the case and reasoning thereof
Considering the facts from original case and arguments made by the parties under appeal,
the court of appeal has decided to provide the decision in the favor of defendant considering the
decision given by the judge of trial court correct. In the reasoning of the decision, the court of
appeal stated that the action taken by Trann was the need of that moment. He was not supposed
to watch his teammate hurting from the attack of the player of another team. Trann had no time
to think of another legal option. In addition to this, Trann had a good record at following the
rules of the game always and attacking others was not is in his nature.
Conclusion
In order to check the appropriateness, this is to state that the decision given by the court
of appeal seems to be correct in this case. The defendant already provided compensation to the

Business Law Assignment
5
applicant. If the court would have given the decision in favor of the applicant, it could discourage
the practice of saving other’s life that is in danger. In such a manner this is to state that yes, i am
agree with the decision of the court.

Business Law Assignment
6
References
Babiuk v. Trann 2005 SKCA 5
Ca.vlex.com. (2019). Babiuk v. Trann, (2005) 257 Sask.R. 92 (CA). Retreived From:
https://ca.vlex.com/vid/babiuk-v-trann-681229805
Canliiconnects.org. (2014). Summary of Babiuk v. Trann. Retreived From:
https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/15773
Yim, A. (2014). Bus 393 D102 Week 3 Presentation on ch.4 Tort. Retreived From:
https://prezi.com/kanvktjgqtdf/bus-393-d102-week-3-presentation-on-ch4-tort/