IMPORTANT:

• DO NOT BEGIN until you have watched the Tort Law Video Lectures and reviewed the slides and
• AFTER you have finished those tasks, read all four cases and fully answer ALL OF THE 4 QUESTIONS at bottom to receive full attendance credit.

CASE A

Stephens v. Myers (1830 United Kingdom)

At a parish meeting, the defendant, Myers, threatened and attempted to assault the plaintiff, Stephens, who was acting as chairman. During the course of an angry discussion, a majority of people at the meeting voted to kick out the defendant. The defendant said that he would rather pull the chairman out of his chair than leave the room. Then he rose from his seat and walked towards the plaintiff with his fist raised, but was stopped by the churchwarden, who sat next to the chairman, before he could get close enough to attack the chairman. The witnesses said that it seemed to them that Myers was advancing with the intention to strike Stephens.

CASE B

Tuberville v. Savage (1699 United Kingdom)

During an argument, the plaintiff had put his hand on his sword and made the following statement: If the traveling judges were not in town right now, I would not take such language from you. Following this, the defendant struck the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to lose his eye.

The plaintiff successfully sued the defendant, who had to pay the plaintiff damages for assault, battery and wounding. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had assaulted him first, and that he was acting in self-defence. The judge disagreed, stating that the plaintiff's actions were not assault, and that the defendant's actions were not justified as self-defence.

CASE C

Dodgson v. Topolinsky (1980 Ontario)

Mr. Justice Labrosse of the Ontario High Court of Justice found driver Carol Dodgson 15% at fault in an accident because of her failure to wear her seatbelt, even though the other driver's negligence was the cause of the accident.

The driver of the other car, Melva Topolinsky, had stopped momentarily at an intersection in a rural area. Then she moved out into the path of Dodgson's car. Dodgson suffered a severe scalp wound and shattered right knee. Her daughter also suffered minor injuries.

Mr. Justice Labrosse awarded the plaintiff $39,184.50 for her injuries, but then reduced this award to $33,306.82 because she was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. A person who does not wear a seatbelt while in a car is negligent in not taking precautions for personal safety. Therefore, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented or lessened injuries suffered in an accident, damages will be reduced, even if the accident is totally the fault of the other driver.

CASE D

Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada (1964 Manitoba)

Campbell, the plaintiff, was a customer at one of RBC's branches in Brandon, MB. Visiting the branch one winter day, she slipped and fell on the floor, and was seriously injured.

Between 7-8 cm of snow had fallen during the day, and customers had tracked slush that formed various wet spots into the bank. In particular, a dangerous glaze had formed near the tellers wicket that Campbell went to. No effort had been made by bank employees to wipe the floor at any time during the day; no mats were provided to customers to wipe their feet. The plaintiff had observed that the floor was wet in certain spots, but was not aware of the dangerous condition at the tellers wicket.

The plaintiff won at trial court, and was awarded damages for her injuries, but lost when the defendants appealed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The plaintiff then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, who restored the original trial decision.

Questions for Cases A thru D:

Please answer all of the following questions in one single post to receive full attendance credit. Total: 100 words minimum, written in complete sentences.

1. For each of Cases A and B, discuss whether assault, battery, or both occurred. Use the terms "plaintiff", "defendant", and "liable".
2. Why do you think the judge decided in Case B that the defendant's actions were not justifiable as self-defence? Consider the plaintiff's actions and the defendant's response.
3. Explain how the principle of contributory negligence applies to Case C. See Video Lecture and Slides.
4. In Case D, why was the bank held liable for the plaintiff's injuries under the tort of occupier's liability? Explain whether the bank followed the required standard of care toward its invitees.

General Requirements:

• Use a Number List to show the number of each case you are answering. The list of questions above is an example of a Number List: (1. 2. 3. 4.)
• Do not recopy the original cases or questions.
• Answer the questions in your own words, and in complete sentences.
• Plagiarism will be reported to the Academic Department and will result in zero attendance credit for the week.