Legal Issues Review
heodora Holding Corp. v. Henderson CASE PRESENTATIONS In the Reading List you will see that you have been assigned to present cases during the course. Your case presentations will be incorporated into class lectures and will form a key part of the analysis of various course topics. There is no single right way to do a case presentation. However, as you are preparing your cases I would like you to use the following model: Facts: Provide a concise overview of the key facts of the case. Issue: Identify the key legal issue(s) in the case. Held: Indicate how the case was decided. Note that the case may have moved from trial to appeal and then possibly to the Supreme Court of Canada (or other top court). If possible please set out how the case was decided at each level of court. Reasons: Set out the key reasons for the decision of the court. Note that in some cases the reasons are extensive. Please summarize such as concisely as possible focusing on what you believe are the critical reasons for the decision. Ratio: Provide the ratio [the key legal principle(s)] that comes out of the case. Comments: Provide your own personal comments or perspective on the case In addition to your presentation in class, in order to assist your fellow students, please prepare a concise written summary of your case. (I would emphasize concise. Case summaries will normally be one to two pages in length and should definitely not exceed three pages.) Case summaries should be posted on Moodle prior to the class presentation. Instructions for posting your cases are included in a separate document. A sample case is attached. SAMPLE CASE SUMMARY THE CASE OF BUCKLEY & T.T.C. v. SMITH TRANSPORT LTD IS INCLUDED IN THE COURSE PACK UNDER PART II LIABILITY OF THE CORPORATION IN TORT Buckley & T.T.C. v. Smith Transport Ltd. Ontario Court of Appeal  FACTS: 1. Taylor was the driver of a truck owned by the Appellant (Defendant). 2. Taylor failed to stop at a stop sign and crashed into a bus injuring Buckley, the driver (Respondent – Plaintiff). 3. Taylor had become suddenly insane believing the truck was being operated by remote control. 4. Taylor told the police this story 20 minutes following the accident and to other witnesses the day of the accident. 5. Taylor died a month after the accident of syphilis of the brain. 6. The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiffs. ISSUE: Does insanity or mental illness relieve a person from a duty to take care and the resulting liability in negligence? HELD: Appeal Allowed…judgment in favour of the Appellant (Defendant). REASONS: 1. The key question was the degree of insanity experienced by Taylor. As a result of his mental illness he was unable to understand and appreciate the duty of care required of him. No liability could therefore accrue to him. 2. The Appellant trucking company was not liable for the actions of Taylor as it had no knowledge of Taylor’s mental illness. RATIO: The decision of whether a mentally ill person can be found liable in negligence is dependent on whether the mentally ill person was able to understand and appreciate the duty of care expected of that person. COMMENTS: 1. Should the law make such a distinction for those who are mentally ill? Does this fit with the primary objective of tort law which is to compensate? 2. Many normal people do not fully understand and appreciate a duty of care…should the standard be different for them?