1. Smith is a farmer who, amongst other activities, has been in the business of raising chickens on a large scale. The baby chicks require a continuous supply of oxygen to survive and the necessary equipment for that purpose is connected to the electric power supplied to the farm. In the past Smith had suffered a minor loss of chickens from an interruption in this electric service and had, as a result, installed an auxiliary batteryoperated power generator in the barn to be available as an emergency backup. He had taken the further precaution of having a battery operated power failure detector in his bedroom so that if the electrical power in the farmhouse failed, a warning signal would alert him to the potential danger of loss of electricity to his operation. Henry is a driver for Gardiner Transport Ltd. While driving the company's truck on a night run, Henry allowed the vehicle to wander onto the shoulder of the road where the upper part struck overhead wires. As a result, electric power service in the area was interrupted for a period of five hours. The interruption extinguished the supply of oxygen to Smith's barn and some 30,000 chickens died. Unfortunately, Smith had temporarily disconnected the alarm detector in his bedroom and so on the one occasion when he needed it, it was not in operation. Smith brought an action for damages against both Henry and Gardiner Transport Ltd. to compensate him for the loss of his chickens. Discuss the merits of the plaintiff's (Smith's) case, with particular reference to each of the elements of a tort action. What will be the defences? What will be the likely outcome? (10 marks)