Canadian business law

Question

Dale was driving 40 kilometres per hour (kph) in a 40 kph zone down the right-hand lane of a four- lane Ontario street where children were playing. Nine-year-old Patrick ran into the street chasing a soccer ball. Dale, without glancing over his left shoulder or looking in his rear-view mirror as pre- scribed by traffic regulations, swerved into the other lane to avoid Patrick. In so doing, he hit a car driven by Danika and going in the same direction as Dale in the left-hand lane at 50 kph. Danika lost control of the car, hit a utility pole, and was seriously injured. The pole, owned by Powerco, snapped in two and the wires were about to fall on Patrick, still in the street. Paula, standing nearby, saw this and ran to push Patrick out of harm’s way. She succeeded, but in saving Patrick was hit by the wires herself. Paula died of electrocution and burns from the wires. Patrick survived with some bruises and scraped knees.

Answer 1

This problem involves negligence, contributory negligence, causation, foreseeability, and the rescue doctrine under Canadian tort law.

Dale: Dale may be negligent even though he was travelling at the 40 kph speed limit. A driver must exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and the presence of children playing near the street could require heightened caution. More importantly, Dale changed lanes without checking his mirror or blind spot as required by traffic regulations. A reasonable driver should check whether another vehicle occupies the lane before swerving. His failure to do so is strong evidence of a breach of the standard of care.

Dale can argue that he faced a sudden emergency when Patrick ran into the road. His decision to swerve to avoid striking a child would not itself necessarily be unreasonable. However, the emergency does not automatically excuse his failure to check for traffic before entering the adjacent lane. The question is whether a reasonable driver confronted with the same emergency would have acted as Dale did.

Danika: Danika was travelling 50 kph in a 40 kph zone and was therefore speeding. This may constitute contributory negligence if her excessive speed contributed to the collision or increased the severity of her injuries. However, her speeding does not automatically eliminate Dale's liability. A court could find both drivers negligent and apportion responsibility between them according to their respective contributions to the accident.

Patrick: At age nine, Patrick is not automatically judged according to the standard expected of an adult. The issue would generally be whether he exercised the care reasonably expected from a child of similar age, intelligence, and experience. Running into a street after a soccer ball could potentially constitute contributory negligence, but his young age is important. If Patrick or his representatives brought a claim, Dale could also argue that Patrick's conduct contributed to the incident.

Paula: Paula's death is connected to the original accident through the rescue doctrine. It is reasonably foreseeable that when negligence puts someone in imminent danger, another person may attempt a rescue. Paula saw electrical wires about to fall on Patrick and acted to save him. Unless her rescue attempt was extraordinarily reckless, the defendants generally cannot escape liability merely because Paula voluntarily entered the dangerous situation.

The causal sequence is:

Dale's lane change → collision with Danika → Danika strikes pole → live wires threaten Patrick → Paula attempts rescue → Paula is killed.

Although several events occurred between Dale's conduct and Paula's death, the rescue was a response to the danger created by the accident rather than necessarily an independent event breaking the chain of causation.

Powerco: The facts merely state that Powerco owned the pole. Ownership alone does not establish negligence. There would need to be evidence that Powerco failed to construct, inspect, maintain, or safeguard the pole or electrical system reasonably. If the pole and wires were properly maintained and failed only because Danika's vehicle struck them, Powerco may have no liability.

Overall, Dale has a strong possibility of liability, particularly because he changed lanes without making the required observations. Danika may share responsibility because she was speeding, assuming her speed contributed to the collision or resulting harm. Patrick's conduct must be assessed using the appropriate standard for a nine-year-old. Paula's rescue attempt would generally be considered a foreseeable consequence of the danger, making a negligence claim arising from her death possible rather than treating her intervention automatically as breaking the chain of causation. The court would ultimately determine causation and apportion fault among any negligent parties based on the evidence.