Case 2: Dodgson v. Topolinsky (1980) 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. The decision means that a person who does not wear a seatbelt while in a car is negligent in not taking precautions for personal safety. 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. Questions for this case: Explain in your own words why the judge found Dodgson partly responsible for her own injury. 2. What is the name of the legal term for this issue? ("_ negligence") Case 3: Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada (1964) Campbell, the plaintiff, was a customer at one of the branches of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) in Manitoba. 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 teller's 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 teller's wicket. The plaintiff won at trial, 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 this case: 1. Explain the relationship that existed between Ms. Campbell and RBC. 2. What duty of care did the bank have towards its customers? Did the bank follow the required standard of care towards its customers? Please read each of the 3 cases, and answer the questions at the bottom. Requirements: Answer the questions in your own words . State your opinion of who is right and wrong, according to Canadian law Discuss the legal terms and concepts that apply to each case (see Tort Law Readings, Slides) Case 1: Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers (1979) William Vander Zalm, the plaintiff in this action, and the BC Minister of Human Resources at the time, took legal action against the Victoria Times, the editor, the publisher, and artoonist Bob Bierman for an alleged defamation in a cartoon that appeared on the newspaper's editorial page. The cartoon caricatured the facial features of the plaintiff, and depicted him seated at a table, with a look of cruel enjoyment on his face, engaged in pulling the wings from flies. The cartoon identified the plaintiff only by a tag on his chest that read "Human Resources". With the cartoon, an actual photograph of the minister appeared together with an article in which he made negative comments about native youths who left their reserves to look for work in the cities. The plaintiff claimed that the cartoon depicted him as a "monster" and made him fear for the safety of himself and his family. He contended that the cartoon was an uncalled-for, malicious personal attack. The defence contended that political cartoons employ gross exaggeration and symbolism, and should never be taken literally. The cartoonist argued that he had intended to play the plaintiff as cruel and thoughtless in his performance as Minister, but not cruel and thoughtless as a human being. The plaintiff sued for damages in BC trial court, and was awarded $3500 for the loss of his reputation. However, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, who overturned the trial judge's decision, finding that no defamation had occurred. The Court of Appeal ruled that: "We have become accustomed to witty cartoons, and this one was coarse. But a cartoon can be in bad taste and not be defamatory; mere insult or vulgar abuse have been held not to constitute defamation." Questions for this case: 1: For what type of defamation was the plaintiff suing? 2. Why did the plaintiff take action against the newspaper, its editor, and its publisher, as well as the artist himself? Do you agree with the trial judge that this was defamation, or do you agree with the appeal judge that it was not? Explain your answer. Case 2: Dodgson v. Topolinsky (1980) 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. The decision means that a person who does not wear a seatbelt while in a car is negligent in not taking precautions for personal safety. 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. Questions for this case: Explain in your own words why the judge found Dodgson partly responsible for her own injury. 2. What is the name of the legal term for this issue? ("_ negligence") Case 3: Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada (1964) Campbell, the plaintiff, was a customer at one of the branches of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) in Manitoba. 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 teller's 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 teller's wicket. The plaintiff won at trial, 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 this case: 1. Explain the relationship that existed between Ms. Campbell and RBC. 2. What duty of care did the bank have towards its customers? Did the bank follow the required standard of care towards its customers? Please read each of the 3 cases, and answer the questions at the bottom. Requirements: Answer the questions in your own words . State your opinion of who is right and wrong, according to Canadian law Discuss the legal terms and concepts that apply to each case (see Tort Law Readings, Slides) Case 1: Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers (1979) William Vander Zalm, the plaintiff in this action, and the BC Minister of Human Resources at the time, took legal action against the Victoria Times, the editor, the publisher, and artoonist Bob Bierman for an alleged defamation in a cartoon that appeared on the newspaper's editorial page. The cartoon caricatured the facial features of the plaintiff, and depicted him seated at a table, with a look of cruel enjoyment on his face, engaged in pulling the wings from flies. The cartoon identified the plaintiff only by a tag on his chest that read "Human Resources". With the cartoon, an actual photograph of the minister appeared together with an article in which he made negative comments about native youths who left their reserves to look for work in the cities. The plaintiff claimed that the cartoon depicted him as a "monster" and made him fear for the safety of himself and his family. He contended that the cartoon was an uncalled-for, malicious personal attack. The defence contended that political cartoons employ gross exaggeration and symbolism, and should never be taken literally. The cartoonist argued that he had intended to play the plaintiff as cruel and thoughtless in his performance as Minister, but not cruel and thoughtless as a human being. The plaintiff sued for damages in BC trial court, and was awarded $3500 for the loss of his reputation. However, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, who overturned the trial judge's decision, finding that no defamation had occurred. The Court of Appeal ruled that: "We have become accustomed to witty cartoons, and this one was coarse. But a cartoon can be in bad taste and not be defamatory; mere insult or vulgar abuse have been held not to constitute defamation." Questions for this case: 1: For what type of defamation was the plaintiff suing? 2. Why did the plaintiff take action against the newspaper, its editor, and its publisher, as well as the artist himself? Do you agree with the trial judge that this was defamation, or do you agree with the appeal judge that it was not? Explain your answer. Case 2: Dodgson v. Topolinsky (1980) 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. The decision means that a person who does not wear a seatbelt while in a car is negligent in not taking precautions for personal safety. 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. Questions for this case: Explain in your own words why the judge found Dodgson partly responsible for her own injury. 2. What is the name of the legal term for this issue? ("_ negligence") Case 3: Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada (1964) Campbell, the plaintiff, was a customer at one of the branches of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) in Manitoba. 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 teller's 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 teller's wicket. The plaintiff won at trial, 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 this case: 1. Explain the relationship that existed between Ms. Campbell and RBC. 2. What duty of care did the bank have towards its customers? Did the bank follow the required standard of care towards its customers? Please read each of the 3 cases, and answer the questions at the bottom. Requirements: Answer the questions in your own words . State your opinion of who is right and wrong, according to Canadian law Discuss the legal terms and concepts that apply to each case (see Tort Law Readings, Slides) Case 1: Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers (1979) William Vander Zalm, the plaintiff in this action, and the BC Minister of Human Resources at the time, took legal action against the Victoria Times, the editor, the publisher, and artoonist Bob Bierman for an alleged defamation in a cartoon that appeared on the newspaper's editorial page. The cartoon caricatured the facial features of the plaintiff, and depicted him seated at a table, with a look of cruel enjoyment on his face, engaged in pulling the wings from flies. The cartoon identified the plaintiff only by a tag on his chest that read "Human Resources". With the cartoon, an actual photograph of the minister appeared together with an article in which he made negative comments about native youths who left their reserves to look for work in the cities. The plaintiff claimed that the cartoon depicted him as a "monster" and made him fear for the safety of himself and his family. He contended that the cartoon was an uncalled-for, malicious personal attack. The defence contended that political cartoons employ gross exaggeration and symbolism, and should never be taken literally. The cartoonist argued that he had intended to play the plaintiff as cruel and thoughtless in his performance as Minister, but not cruel and thoughtless as a human being. The plaintiff sued for damages in BC trial court, and was awarded $3500 for the loss of his reputation. However, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, who overturned the trial judge's decision, finding that no defamation had occurred. The Court of Appeal ruled that: "We have become accustomed to witty cartoons, and this one was coarse. But a cartoon can be in bad taste and not be defamatory; mere insult or vulgar abuse have been held not to constitute defamation." Questions for this case: 1. For what type of defamation was the plaintiff suing? 2. Why did the plaintiff take action against the newspaper, its editor, and its publisher, as well as the artist himself? Do you agree with the trial judge that this was defamation, or do you agree with the appeal judge that it was not? Explain your answer.