A house fire breaks out late at night on the upper floor of a two story house. A 16 year old boy who had been sleeping on a couch in the study where the fire was believed to have begun and two girls – the boy’s 2 year-old and 12 year-old cousins who were sleeping in the next room- are killed in the fire.

An investigation reveals that the fire was most likely caused by a dropped cigarette. The investigator’s theory is that the boy fell asleep while smoking and dropped the cigarette on the couch. The couch was 30 years old and made of highly flammable materials.

Surprised at how readily the fire started, the investigators inquire about which brand of cigarettes the boy smoked. The boy’s parents – who forbade him from smoking – did not know, but his friends reported that he alternated between three brands. Two of those brands were manufactured by the Company.

The Company’s advertising claims that it is cigarettes contain 20 percent more tobacco than other brands. Since the 1900s, many, but not all, tobacco companies have changed the way they fill cigarettes, packing the tobacco in a manner that makes the cigarettes “self-extinguishing,” so that when put down in an ashtray, they quickly stop burning (which is safer and wastes less tobacco). This packing process also means each cigarette contains about 20 percent less tobacco. These details lead investigators to suspect that he dropped cigarette was not of the self-extinguishing variety; in other words, it was of a brand that is less fireproof than 75 percent of the cigarette on the Canadian market.

Applying the relevant principles of the tort of negligence, provide an explanation to the following questions from the Company’s perspective.

1. If the bereaved families learn that someone other than the (underage) boy bought the cigarette from the Company, does the Company still owe the boy a duty of care?
2. Does the Company owe the boy’s cousins a duty of care?
3. Was the cigarette the cause in fact of the damages?
4. Was the cigarette the cause in law of the damage?
5. Were there any other causes of the damages?
6. Should the fact that there were other causes affect how the Company handles the case?
7. Is the type of harm that occurred (death by burning) sufficiently remote from the cause that the Company could deny liability on that basis?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 The organization actually owes the kid as a buyer of their items an obligation of care regardless of whether the cigarettes were bought by someone e... View the full answer