Business Law Assignment: Torts Analysis and Negligence

This assignment solution addresses two legal issues related to torts, specifically focusing on assault and negligence within the context of Canadian law. The first part analyzes whether Susan's behavior constituted an assault against Mary, referencing the definition of assault under Canadian tort law and the case of R. v. Kerrivan (J.J.). The second part examines whether Rosy could prove negligence on behalf of Edgar, analyzing the four elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages, and referencing the landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. The solution applies legal principles to the given scenarios, providing a clear and concise analysis of each issue, and concludes with the determination of legal responsibilities and potential actions that could be taken. The assignment utilizes the IRAC method to analyze the legal problems and provides a comprehensive understanding of the topics covered.

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

1BUSINESS AND LAW
Answer 1
Issue
Whether the behavior Susan constituted a tort and whether Mary could take any action
against her.
Rule
Assault under Canadian tort law is considered to be any intention to cause any kind of
danger to a person making the person to whom the imminent danger is to be imposed on
apprehend that there is a danger. The apprehension of any kind of danger that could be posed on
a person verbally is considered to be an assault. An assault is considered to be different from that
of battery. If a person takes a swing at another person but misses to hit the person then it would
be considered to be an assault whereas, if the person would have physically caused any kind of
harm on another person then it would have constituted as battery. It can be held in the case of R.
v. Kerrivan (J.J.), 2004 NLSCTD 112 where the offender had pointed a firearm towards the
victim that constituted as an assault. (Doelle, 2016).
Application
In this particular case Susan had threatened to cause an imminent danger to Mary with
the intention to cause harm. On being threatened Mary had apprehended that she was in danger
because of the threat made by Susan. Therefore, from the above rule it can be comprehended that
an assault took place where Susan had constituted an assault As it can be understood from the
case of R. v. Kerrivan (J.J.), 2004 NLSCTD 112.

2BUSINESS AND LAW
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be comprehended, that Susan had constituted
an assault and Mary could take actions against her.

3BUSINESS AND LAW
Answer 4
Issue
Whether Rosy could prove that negligence had been caused on behalf of Edgar.
Rule
Negligence is the act in which there has been a failure to take care and due to the
negligent behavior an injury or harm has been caused to a person. The concept of negligence can
be understood clearly from the leading case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 where a
woman had fallen ill after she drank ginger beer from an impervious bottle. She also stated that
decomposed snail remains were found in that bottle and therefore, took action against the
bottling company. There are four ways in which it can be proved if negligible behavior was
caused or not. The four elements of negligence would be duty, breach causation and damages.
These are the four faults which can be used to prove negligible behavior (Brown, 2016).
Application
In the present instance Rosy could claim for negligible behavior if the four causes are
proved. There was a certain duty of care on the part of Edgars towards his employees. There was
a breach of the duty on Edgars part as he failed to conduct any test which would detect whether
there was any asbestos present in the building and in Paul’s room. The third would be causation
which showed that the negligible behavior of Edgars deteriorated the health condition of Paul
which led to his death. Fourthly, if the negligible behavior has been proved in the court then
damages needed to be given as compensation to the aggrieved. As Edgars negligent behavior
caused death of his employee Paul.

4BUSINESS AND LAW
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be understood that Rosy could claim for
compensation from Edgars since he committed the act of negligence.

5BUSINESS AND LAW
References
Brown, R. B. (2016). Canada's First Malpractice Crisis: Medical Negligence in the Late
Nineteenth Century. Osgoode Hall LJ, 54, 777.
Doelle, M. (2016). The Canadian Law of Toxic Torts, by Lynda Collins & Heather Mcleod-
Kilmurray. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 52(3), 1151-1156.
Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562.
R. v. Kerrivan (J.J.), 2004 NLSCTD 112.