Automatism and Liability

The assignment content discusses various torts and liabilities in a scenario involving Richard, Jennifer, Simon, and an investment group. Richard intentionally defamed Jennifer on her Facebook page, committing intentional tort. Simon was mistakenly identified as the cause of Richard's actions by security guards, leading to a Strict Liability Tort being committed against him. Additionally, Simon was trapped in an elevator for two hours due to a maintenance issue, also resulting in a Strict Liability Tort. Jennifer, an expert market analyst, made a mistake in her report, leading to a Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort. The assignment references Canadian law sources and discusses the concepts of intentional torts, strict liability torts, and concurrent liability.

JENNIFER’S VERY BAD DAY
1. Jennifer has been possessing an office in a building for which she is paying rent. It makes
her an occupier of the property that belongs to someone else. So, the relevant law that is
applicable here is Occupier’s Liability Act, RSO, 1990. As per the provisions of this law,
an occupier is someone who is in physical possession of premises and therefore extends
to fulfill the responsibility for the control over the condition of the premises (Buckley,
2006). The law also proffers the occupier’s duty of care, which goes on to state that the
occupier owes a duty towards the owner’s property to take care of it in almost all the
circumstances. The duty of care applies in basically three ways – a) condition of premise,
b) activities on it, or c) conduct of third parties on it. Therefore, Jennifer being the
occupier is responsible for controlling the conditions of the premise. Again, the Section 6
of the Act specifies the tenancy relationship, which essentially says that if any repair is
due in the premises, the landlord should be duly informed. Here, we can presume that the
landlord had to carry out the repairs.
However, Paul forgot to tell the landlord about the frayed carpet as he was told by
Jennifer to do so. Therefore, as per the Tort laws, it was an act of negligence by Paul
under Canadian Abridgment: TOR.XVI.2 Torts — Negligence — Duty and standard of
care. Jennifer hired Paul as her secretary so, she was apparently dependent on him in a lot
of things. She explicitly had told him about the need for repair, which Paul should not
have forgotten. So, it is enough to establish that Paul was negligent as he failed to adhere
to the objective standard of care. So, he has the liability in tort.
2. Jennifer had brought her dog in her office which is, in normal circumstances, friendly and
well behaved. At the same time, one of the clients, Kate, was also there who had her three
year old child. But because of unfortunate circumstances, Jennifer’s dog nipped Kate’s
child. Although, the dog, as per the facts suggested, was very friendly as well as very
well behaved, but this doesn’t absolve Jennifer from the responsibility that comes upon
because of being an owner. The Dog Owner’s Liability Act came into power in 2005 with
a purpose of authorizing the proceedings against an owner of a dog when it was
responsible for posing a menace to the safety of other people. As per the Act, an owner is
being described as the one who possesses or keeps or harbors the dog (Isaacs, 1918). The
Act also specifies the civil liability of the owner as the owner will be liable for the
damages that were resulted because of a bite or an attack by the dog. The liability attracts
$10,000 and six months of imprisonment for the owner.
In this case, the victim was a minor that cannot in any manner be held responsible for
provoking the dog, so, Jennifer and Kate both should have taken care of the child,
especially when there was a dog in the vicinity. Therefore, Jennifer being negligent has
also committed a negligent tort. Moreover, because of the series of events that were
started after the dog bit the child, Kate fell down and broke her arm because of a frayed
item. So, in this case also the Canadian Abridgment: TOR.XVI.2 Torts — Negligence —
Duty and standard of care is applicable to Jennifer because the hurry that Kate was in,
was a natural reaction of any mother when she sees her child in life threatening situations.

3. In this situation Richard, one of Jennifer’s clients, was extremely furious because the
investment strategy being told him by Jennifer was apparently failed. As a matter of fact,
any investment strategy related to market is not completely fool proof because there are a
lot of factors that might as well have come into play. However, he was apparently
charged and furiously went towards Jennifer with closed fists, which made her panicked
and threw a vase at Richard, who seriously got injured because of that. Now, as per
Canadian Abridgment: TOR.XXII Torts — Miscellaneous, there is a seemingly negligent
tort committed by Jennifer but it was without premeditated intention of harming Richard.
The whole act on her part was a reaction to the unexpected stance taken by Richard and
she did all that just for the self-defense.
Moreover, the Act also says that a person inflicting an injury on other person at a time of
being in complete automatism, cannot and should not be held responsible or liable under
the principle of law (Linden, 1977). But for courts, such condition may indicate
confusion or a grey area because the defendant lack of control was resulted from external
factors.
Finally, Richard got involved in the act of defaming Jennifer on her Facebook page as he
was posting negative comments about her, which might have affected her reputation in
the market. So, clearly he was doing that with an intention of doing harm to her
reputation. It was an intentional tort committed by Richard. Therefore, as per Canadian
Abridgment: TOR.VII.3.d Torts — Fraud and misrepresentation — Negligent
misrepresentation, Richard is also liable under intentional tort.
4. The presence of Simon, who was an unknown client, in the office can and should not in
any which manner be construed by anyone that he might have been a cause for any
wrongdoing. The security guards who arrived in the office because of the commotion
caused due to Richard incident, presumed that Simon was responsible for what had
happened there because of the ordinary clothes worn by Simon. It was a false
presumption whatsoever as no one can blame other person without any investigation and
due diligence done in the first place. So, the security guards were in clear violation of the
law and committing Strict Liability Tort (Perry, 1988). It was not in their realm of
judging and declaring as to who should be responsible for anything wrong. Their act
might have made Simon suffer inconvenience or time and financial loss because they
ordered him to go to the security office without even trying to hear from him or anyone.
Moreover, Simon was also trapped in an elevator for two hours. Apparently, the workers
had not fixed an existing problem in the doors of the elevator that must have locked them.
This indicates that a Strict Liability Tort has been committed on the part of the workers
and maintenance department because getting trapped inside an elevator for two hours can
made people feel claustrophobic that could in turn have produced health issues with
Simon.
5. Jennifer’s track record explains her efficiency and expertise in the determination of
market conditions of any company. Her invaluable analysis had not only helped the
investment group several times in the past but a third party called Julia Chan as well.
However, in her latest report, she made a blunder mistake by stating debits as assets of
the company in question, which was anyway entered into bankruptcy. The fact that the
investment group had hired Jennifer for her expert knowledge regarding market analysis

made them completely rely upon Jennifer’s expert report. So, it was her responsibility to
work very carefully where stakes were so high, that is, where a big amount of money was
involved. However, she failed to fulfill her responsibility.
It is, therefore, an indicative of II.8: Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort. Therefore,
as per Canadian Abridgment: TOR.VII.3.d Torts — Fraud and misrepresentation —
Negligent misrepresentation of the facts. As per this law, liability is imposed upon a
defendant for doing a tortious wrong and breach
(http://www.westlawnextcanada.com/academic/ced/torts/).
The law says that the plaintiff is needed to establish that a special relationship exists and
because of that there is a common law duty of care in tort. Further, the plaintiff is
required to establish a concurrent liability and so, a common law duty of care was owed
due to a sufficient proximity of relationship between the parties. The law also entails that
the damages could be claimed as well as the applicability of statutes for liability.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s election to sue in tort or contract may affect the heads of
damage available. In relation to the present case, the Canadian courts have often held that
the recoverable damages do not depend on the procedure of the plaintiff’s cause of
action.

References
Buckley, R. (2006). Occupiers' Liability in England and Canada. Common Law World
Review, 35(3), 197-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/clwr.2006.35.3.197
Durbin, E. Torts – Nature of Tort Law and Liability. Westlawnextcanada.com. Retrieved 6
October 2016, from http://www.westlawnextcanada.com/academic/ced/torts/
Isaacs, N. (1918). Fault and Liability. Harvard Law Review, 31(7), 954-979
Linden, A. M. (1977). Canadian tort law. Butterworths.
Perry, S. R. (1988). The impossibility of general strict liability. The Canadian Journal of Law
and Jurisprudence, 1(02), 147-171.
Westlawnextcanada.com. Retrieved 6 October 2016, from
http://www.westlawnextcanada.com/academic/ced/torts/