Case Summary $5\mathrm{.}1$ Driverless Snowmobile Strikes: Passerin v$.$ Webb Quoting Chief Justice McLachlin: "A successful action in negligence requires that the plaintiff demonstrate $(1)$ that the defendant owed him a duty of care; $(2)$ that the defendant's behaviour breached the standard of care; $(3)$ that the plaintiff sustained damage; and $(4)$ that the damage was caused, in fact and in law, by the defendant's breach."$2$ In this case where the plaintiff was struck by a driverless snowmobile, one crucial question was whether the defendant's lack of care caused the injury; another was whether he owed the plaintiff a duty to be careful in the first place. Various witnesses testified that snowmobiling is a sport where, from time to time, riders fall from the machine or get stuck in the snow. As there were several riders in the party, common sense would dictate that they watch out for others. Due to their proximity, it was foreseeable that failing to act with care could endanger those around them. Was the defendant sufficiently careful? After he fell off his snowmobile, he either failed to engage the kill switch or failed to wear his tether cord, which should have stopped the engine. In either event, the snowmobile stayed in motion until it collided with the plaintiff. The Court concluded that the defendant did not have the tether cord affixed to his clothing, contrary to what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances. That the plaintiff suffered injury was without question, but did the carelessness of the defendant cause the injury? The defendant maintained this was a freak accident, but the Court concluded that but for the defendant's lack of care, the plaintiff would not have been injured. Was the injury too remote to be reasonably foreseeable? The answer lay in whether the harm was too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable. Was harm to the plaintiff a real risk? Was it one that would occur to the mind of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant? The Court found that it would not be too far$-$fetched for a reasonable person to foresee that a driverless, moving snowmobile was a real risk in an area frequented by other snowmobilers. Accordingly, liability for the damage was imposed on the defendant. Discussion Question When someone gets hurt, people may ask, who is to blame? Before the Courts will determine it is just to require one party to pay for another's loss or injury, what needs to be estab$-$lished?