Case study 1

An employee had a habit of drinking on the job. The employer was aware of this and did nothing about it. One day the employee drank to the point of intoxication, drove home in that condition, then left again and smashed into the plaintiff's car, causing serious injury. The victim not only sued the drunken employee but also the employer.

Case 2:

THE BUSINBSS CONTEXT: Every day, people are injured by using potentially dangerous products and tl1en bring lawsuits against the manufacturer to recover compensation. However, if the user's injury was not caused by the manufacturer but by the user's own carelessness, the manufacturer has a complete defence to the claim.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: The plaintiff, Mr. Hanke, was the operator of an ice resurfacing machine, which he was using to groom the ice in a local arena. Unfortunately, Hanke was badly burned because he mistakenly placed hot water in the gasoline tank portion of the machine rather than in the hot water tank portion, where it belonged . As a result, vaporized gasoline was released into the air, which was then ignited by an overhead heater. This created an explosion and fire resulting in devastating injuries to Hanke. Hanke sued the manufacturer of the machine, Resurfice Corp., among others, for damages on the basis that the gasoline and water tanks were similar in appearance and placed close together on the machine. He argued that this design was negligent because it made it easy for someone to confuse one tank for tl1e other

THE LEGAL QUESTION: Did the manufacturer cause Hanke's loss? RESOLUTION: The plaintiff must show tl1at "but for" the defendant's alleged negligent act- here in the design of the machine-the disfiguring accident would not have happened. The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's ruling that the alleged design defects did not cause the accident; Hanke's own carelessness caused his injuries. According to the trial judge: [4411 agree with the argument of Counsel for Resurfice Corp. [the manufacturer and defendant [that Hanke knew precisely which was the water tank and which was the gasoline

Case 3: Vanek v Great Atlantic & Pacific Co of Canada Ltd.

A child became sick for a short time when she consumed a fruit juice drink produced by the defendant. The drink was contaminated with toxic fluid. Unfortunately, her parents, and especially her father, were particularly susceptible to nervous shock and anxiety, and he was eventually hospitalized for heart disease and unstable angina brought about by the stress caused by his daughter's injury. The daughter and her parents decided to sue for the injuries suffered.