Legal hypothetical - Tort law

Tony was traveling west on 104th avenue in Surrey, BC when Tony approached the corner of 104th avenue and King George highway, he put his right hand turn indicator on and came to full stop. There was pedestrian, named Sally who was walking east in the middle of crosswalk and Tony waited until she stepped on to the curb before proceeding to turn.

As Tony was turning, a cyclist (who was traveling westbound down the sidewalk on a 104th avenue) failed to slow down or stop at the intersection as he was trying to make it across the crosswalk before the light turned Amber. A witness provided a statement where he stated that the cyclist (a minor) was riding at such a high speed down the hill that he thought the minor was going to hit Sally with his bicycle. Tony told the police that he turned on his indicator, came to a full stop and completed a shoulder check before initiating his turn (as mentioned he delayed his turn as he waited for The pedestrian to cross) and that he did not see the cyclist before turning. Just as Tony's passenger door was in line with the crosswalk, the front wheel of the minor's bicycle hit Tony's door with such a force that it shook Tony's car. The minor, named Alex, and his bicycle bounced off Tony's car door and Alex fell to the ground onto King George Highway. The paramedics who arrived at the scene of accident 15 minutes later assessed Alex's injuries. Their diagnosis was that Alexis suffered from a sore right shoulder (which hit the car door as he turned to brace himself for impact) as well as a contusion to his right knee (which hit the ground after he bounced off the car) and minor scrapes. There was no damage to Alex's helmet (which ruled out of concussion) but the bicycle's handlebar was twisted after it hit Tony's car door and the rear derailleur was bent inwards when it hit the ground.

Sally, the pedestrain who was crossing King George Highway at the time of accident, thought Alex was seriously injured after witnessing the accident. She fled from the scene immediately after she saw what happened as she was traumatized by what she saw. Sally now suffers selling from extreme anxiety and needs to take medication for her condition. She was already suffering from a mental disorder and had taken a stress leave from work just one week before the accident.

1. Possible defenses for Tony in the potential Alex (and guardians) v. Tony case are:

a. Comparative negligence

b. There are no defenses available in this case

c. Occupiers liability

d. Voluntary assumption of risk

e. Trespass to the person

2. In terms of the test for legal causation in the potential Alex( and his guardians) v. Tony case, which of the following statement have to be true if Alex were to win his case?

a. But for the actions of Tony, Alex would not have suffered injuries

b. But for the actions of Alex, Tony would not have suffered damage

c. The specific injuries suffered by Alex (i.e, a sore right shoulder, contusion to his right knee, any minor scrapes, plus damage to his bike)were foreseeable outcomes given the circumstances.

d. the specific damage to Tony's cars (i.e, the damage to passenger door of his car) was foreseeable outcome given the circumstances

e. you just have to simply state that Tony caused the accident in order to prove legal causation

3. In the potential case of sally v. Tony and Alex (and his guardians) it can be argued that Tony and Alex Owed Sally a duty of contract because:

a. both Tony and Alex should have foreseen that their actions could cause harm to pedestrians who were crossing the road.

b. there is no case against either potential defendant because neither Tony nor Alex could have foreseen that their actions may cause harm

c. only Tony should have foreseen that his actions could cause harm to pedestrian crossing the road

d. both Tony and Alex could not have foreseen that their actions could cause harm to pedestrians crossing the road

e. only Alex should have Forseen that his actions could cause harm to the pedestrains crossing the road

4. Torts 1. Even if Tony wants to sue Alex for negligence, the most likely outcome of the case would be:

a. Alex would win the case because Tony did not breach the standard of care owed to Alex

b. Tony cannot sue Alex because he is a minor

c. Tony would win the case because Alex is a minor

d. Tony will have to sue Alex's parents and Tony will likely win the case because parents are liable for unintentional loss or damage caused by their children

e. it is likely that Tony will just get his car fixed by paying the deductible on his insurance as that will take care of the damage suffered

5. Torts 9. if Tony wants to sue Alex for the damage to cause to his car the first test used in the ABCDs negligence would be:

a. the reasonable person test, to establish that Tony did not act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances

b. the foreseeable plaintiff, test to establish that Alex owed a the duty of care to Tony because it is reasonably foreseeable that Alex's actions could cause damage

c. the foreseeable plaintiff, test to establish that Tony owed a the duty of care to Alex because it is reasonably foreseeable that Tony's actions could cause damage

d. the reasonable person test, to establish that Alex did not act as a reasonable minor under the circumstances

e. you should test for causation first, using the reasonable foreseeability test

6. Torts 12: in terms of the test for physical causation in the potential to Tony v. Alex (and his guardian) case, which of the following statement would have to be true if only where to win his case?

a. the specific type of injuries to Alex were foreseeable outcomes given the circumstances

b. The specific type of damages of food by Tony ( i.e. the damage to the passenger door of his car) was foreseeable outcome given the circumstances

c. But for the actions of Tony Alex would not have suffered injuries

d. But for the actions of Alex, Tony would not have suffered damages

e. you just have to simply state that Alex caused the accident and damage to Tony's car in order to prove physical causation in this case

7. Torts 2; if Alex wants to sue Tony ( by way of his guardians) the first test used in the ABCDs of negligence would be:

a. the reasonable person test to establish that Tony did not act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances

b. the foreseeable plaintiff test, to establish that Alex owed a duty of care to Tony because it is reasonably foreseeable that Alex's actions could cause injury

c.the foreseeable plaintiff test, to establish that Tony owed a duty of care to Alex because it is reasonably foreseeable that Tony's actions could cause injury

d. You should test for causation first, using the reasonable foreseeability test

e. The reasonable person test, to establish that Alex did not act as a reasonable person under the circumstances

8. Torts 16; in the potential case of sally v. Tony and Alex (and his guardians), a breach of standard of care in this case cannot be established because:

a. there was a breach of standard of Care by both potential defendants in this case

b. Neither Tony nor Alex acted as reasonable people would under the circumstances

c. Alex did not breach the standard of care because he acted as a reasonable Minor would when riding his bicycle on the sidewalk down a hill at high speeds

d. Tony did not breach the standard of care because he acted as a reasonable person would when driving a car and turning right at an intersection

e. Both Tony and Alex acted as reasonable people would under the circumstances

9. Torts7; in order to determine damages for the potential case of Alex ( and his guardians)v. Tony, the best approach would be to :

a. Ask Tony what Alex's injuries were

b. Ask Alex what his specific injuries were

c. established that Alex suffered injuries and then refer to precedents to determine if the type of loss is compensable

d. establish that Tony caused the injuries suffered by Alex and then decide whether the loss is compensable

e. established that Alex suffered injuries and then leave it up to the courts to decide whether the loss is compensable

10. Torts7; in the potential case of Alex (and his guardian) v. Tony, to establish that there was a breach of standard of care and therefore duty was owed, you must apply the following test:

a. before the accident, Alex did not act as a reasonable minor of his age would given the circumstances

b. During the accident, Tony did act as a reasonable motorist should

c. after the accident happened, Tony did not act as a reasonable motorist should given the circumstances

d. immediately before and during the accident, Tony did act as a reasonable person should given the circumstances

e. immediately before and during the accident, Tony did not act as a reasonable person should given the circumstances

11. Torts18; if the potential case of sally v. Tony and Alex (and his guardians) passes all the test in the ABCD formula, what could potentially the defenses for the defendants?

a. contributory negligence (Sally, in walking across the road at a busy intersection, was herself negligent)

b. Volenti non fit injuria ( walking across the road at a busy intersection is an unusually dangerous activity)

c. competitive negligence (Sally was contributory negligent and therefore sally's ability to recover damages will be reduced by a percentage in which the plaintiffs are at fault)

d. there are no Viable defenses available to the defendants in this case, given the circumstances

e. All potential defenses (volenti non fit injuria, contributory negligence, comparative negligence) are Available to the defendants as they all apply, given the circumstances

12. Torts10; If it is established that Alex owed Tony a duty of care because proximity has been established, then the following tests must also apply to prove a duty exists:

a. The reasonable person test and reasonable foreseeability test

b. the only test that needs to be applied in order to establish a duty of care is the foreseeable plaintiff test

c. The reasonable person test and policy considerations (Anns test)

d. The foreseeable plaintiff test and policy considerations (Anns test)

e. The foreseeable plaintiff test and reasonable foreseeability test

13. Torts11; in the potential case of Tony v. Alex ( and his guardians), to establish that there was a breach of a standard of care and their duty was owed you must apply the following test:

a. before the accident, Alex did not act as a reasonable minor of his age would given the circumstances

b. after the accident happened, Tony did not act as a reasonable motorist should given the circumstances

c. immediately before and during the accident, Tony did not act as a reasonable person should given the circumstances

d. immediately before and during the accident, Alex did not act as a reasonable minor of his age should given the circumstances

e. During the accident, Tony did act as a reasonable motorist should

14. Torts3; if it is established that Tony owed Alex a duty of care because proximity has been established, then the following test must also be applied to prove a duty exist:

a. The reasonable person test and reasonable foreseeability test

b. The foreseeable plaintiff test and policy considerations (Anns test)

c. the foreseeable plaintiff test and reasonable foreseeability test

d. The only test that needs to be applied in order to establish a duty of care is the foreseeable plaintiff test

e. The reasonable person test and policy considerations ( Anns test)

15. Torts17; in the potential case of Sally v. Tony and Alex (and his guardians), the element of causation fails because:

a. The "but for" test against Tony fails in this case

b. Legal causation can be proven but the " thin skull rule" overrides the associated foreseeability test

c. the specific type of injuries suffered by Sally (I.e. extreme anxiety as a result of witnessing the accident) is not reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances

d. The "but for" test against Alex fails in this case

e. Legal causation passes but the injury suffered is too remote and unforeseeable

16. Torts13: in terms of the test for legal causation in the potential Tony v. Alex (and his guardians)case, which of the following statement have to be true if Tony was to win his case?

a. The specific damage to Tony's car ( i.e.the damage to the passenger door of his car) was a foreseeable outcome given the circumstances

b. But for the actions of Alex Tony would not have suffered damage

c. The specific injuries suffered by Alex (i.e. a sword right shoulder, contusion of his right knee, minor scraps, plus damage to his bike) were foreseeable outcomes given the circumstances

d. you just have to simply state that Alex caused the accident in order to prove legal position in this case

e. But for the actions of Tony, Alex would not have suffered injuries

17. Torts5: in terms of the test for physical causation and potential Alex (and his guardians) v. Tony case which of the following statement would have to be true if Alex were to win his case?

a. you just have to simply state that Tony caused the accident in order to prove physical causation

b. But for the actions of Tony, Alex would not have suffered injuries

c. But for the actions of Alex, Tony would not have suffered a damage

d. The specific damage to Tony's car (i.e. the damage to the passenger door of his car) was foreseeable outcome given the circumstances

e. The specific injuries is suffered by Alex (i.e. a sore right shoulder, contusion to his right knee, minor scrapes, plus damage to his bike) were foreseeable outcomes given the circumstances

18. Tort14; in order to determine damages for the potential case of Tony v Alex (and his guardians) the best approach would be

a. establish that Alex caused the damage suffered by Tony and then decide whether the loss is compensable

b. Ask Tony what the specific damages were

c. Established that Tony suffered damages and then refer to presidents to determine if the type of loss is compensable

d. Ask Alex what the specific damages were

e. Established that Alex suffered injuries and then leave it up to the courts to decide whether the loss is compensable