Business Law Assignment: Analyzing Negligence in Business Scenarios

This document presents a comprehensive solution to a business law assignment, focusing on the concept of negligence. The assignment analyzes three distinct scenarios involving a delivery driver and potential liability for negligence. The solution meticulously examines each scenario, applying relevant legal principles and landmark cases such as Ryan v. Victoria and Donoghue v. Stevenson to determine the driver's liability. The analysis delves into the duty of care, breach of duty, and causation, considering factors such as traffic signals, pedestrian actions, and adverse weather conditions. The document also explores defenses like contributory negligence and the Act of God. Each question is addressed with a clear issue, rule, application, and conclusion format, providing a structured and in-depth understanding of the legal concepts involved. The solution demonstrates a strong grasp of Canadian tort law and its application to practical business situations.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
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

2BUSINESS LAW
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.

3BUSINESS LAW
Negligence defined in ¶1457 of the Quebec Act 1774 would not also be applied here as
the delivery driver has performed his duty with due care and diligence and the negligence
element relating to duty of care laid down in the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
landmark case cannot be applied here, because there is no violation of the principles relating to
the duty of care has been made by the delivery driver at the time of discharging his duty.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that the delivery driver would not be held liable for the
commission of negligence by hitting a pedestrian while discharging his duty.
Question 2
Issue
Whether the delivery driver would be held liable for the commission of negligence by
hitting a vehicle standing ahead of him while discharging his duty.
Rule
In the case of Ryan v. Victoria (City) (1999), 234 N.R. 201 (SCC) it has been defined by
the Canadian Supreme Court, negligence is considered as a conduct which creates a harm risk
that is objectively unreasonable, which includes the unintentional or intentional actions and also
the lacking of action. Generally people 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”. For avoiding the negligence liability, a person needs to exercise a standard of care
which is expected from a reasonable, prudent and ordinary person.

4BUSINESS LAW
For determining the term “reasonable” three questions need to be considered by the court,
which are, whether it has been anticipated by the accused that harm would be created by his or
her conduct; the seriousness of the harm; the amount of the burden cost incurred by the
defendant for preventing the harm. There are some common defenses of negligence which are
comparative negligence, contributory negligence and the risk assumption. In case of comparative
negligence the appointment of recovery is based on the degree of fault of the party which allows
the plaintiff in recovering some of the damages for the injuries (Haddock & Curran, 1985). In
case of contributory negligence, it is said that contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff
was negligent in the discharge of his duty (Prentice, 1994). In the risk assumption, when a
plaintiff even after knowing the dangerousness of a situation, enter voluntarily in such situation,
is said to be have assumed the risk. The principle says that if a plaintiff voluntarily consents an
activity he or she would not have the authority of suing if he or she is later injured.
The Canadian Supreme Court clarified the test of negligence in the Clements v.
Clements, 2012 SCC 32 case. The test of negligence was summarized by the Supreme Court
which states, a plaintiff would not be successful if it has not been shown by him or her that the
loss has been suffered by him or her for the defendant’s negligence act or acts. However, in
exception the plaintiff may also be successful if it is shown that the conduct of the defendant
contributed materially to the plaintiff’s injury risk.
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 red which indicates that he
needs to stop the vehicle until the signal turns green again. After the signal light turned into

5BUSINESS LAW
green the vehicle which was standing ahead of the delivery driver have not proceeded to move
and as a consequence the delivery driver got agitated and finally accelerated which resulted in
hitting the vehicle standing ahead of him and cause some personal injury and damage to that
vehicle driver. The delivery driver is said to have committed the tort of negligence in this
scenario as doing something out of agitation is not considered to be an excuse of law. The case
of Ryan v. Victoria (City) (1999), 234 N.R. 201 (SCC) fits perfectly in this situation as the
delivery driver has not taken the duty of care.
In this scenario, the defense of comparative negligence can be applied as the driver of the
vehicle standing ahead of the truck has also made negligent act on his part by not proceeding
after the signal light turned green. However he can claim the relief from the delivery driver based
on the degree of fault of the delivery driver. The case of Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32
case perfectly fits in this case.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that, the delivery driver would be held liable for the
commission of negligence by hitting a vehicle standing ahead of him while discharging his duty.
Question 3
Issue
Whether the delivery driver would be held liable for the commission of negligence while
discharging his duty by hitting a corner store for the occurrence of a heavy snow fall.

6BUSINESS LAW
Rule
In the Ryan v. Victoria (City) (1999), 234 N.R. 201 (SCC) case it has been defined by
the Canadian Supreme Court, that negligence is considered as a conduct which creates a harm
risk that is objectively unreasonable, which includes the unintentional or intentional actions and
also the lacking of action. Generally people 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”. For avoiding the negligence liability, a person needs to exercise a standard of care
which is expected from a reasonable, prudent and ordinary person.
In Tennant v. Earl of Glasgow, House of Lords, 1864, the court has defined the term
Act of God. It has been stated that an event that has been solely caused by the nature’s effect or
for any natural cause and has been caused without any kind of human interference. The
Woodruff v Oleite Corporation 192 NYS 189 case laid down that anything which has been
operated without the interference and aid of human but the loss has been caused as a result of any
human interference or aid or if the injury has been occurred due to human negligence then the
same would not be considered as an Act of God. The defence of the Act of God can only be
availed by a party only when it has been proved that the comings of such had not been
foreshadowed by the nature’s usual course.
Application
In this provided scenario, a delivery driver was driving his truck while completing the
daily route of his work in the discharge of his duty at a situation of a snow storm of a severe
nature. While driving the truck it slides off from the road and a corner store was hit by such
incident which resulted in the causation of severe damage of property and also an employee was

7BUSINESS LAW
injured in the process. In this situation the driver has not committed any negligent act as standard
care was taken by him in the process thus the elements laid down in the Ryan v. Victoria (City)
(1999), 234 N.R. 201 (SCC) case has not been constituted here. The incident happened due to
the heavy snow fall which can be considered as an Act of God. The case of Tennant v. Earl of
Glasgow, House of Lords, 1864 and Woodruff v Oleite Corporation 192 NYS 189 would
perfectly fit in this scenario.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that the delivery driver would be held liable for the
commission of negligence while discharging his duty by hitting a corner store for the occurrence
of a heavy snow fall.

8BUSINESS LAW
Reference
Prentice, R. A. (1994). Can the Contributory Negligence Defense Contribute to a Defusing of the
Accountants' Liability Crisis. Wis. Int'l LJ, 13, 359.
Haddock, D., & Curran, C. (1985). An economic theory of comparative negligence. The Journal
of Legal Studies, 14(1), 49-72.
Woodruff v Oleite Corporation 192 NYS 189
Tennant v. Earl of Glasgow, House of Lords, 1864
Ryan v. Victoria (City) (1999), 234 N.R. 201 (SCC)
Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Quebec Act 1774