Resurfice v Hanke

stratthixxstratthixx
in Land.Cases

For

"(2014.Spring 3 c.) → 0.500 pts" in the battle quizzes, the solution states, "Accident WAS NOT reasonably forseeable".

Since the trial judge said the accident was reasonably forseeable by Hanke's own admittance, and that the trial ruling was reinstated, shouldn't it say "accident WAS reasonably forseeable"?

Comments

  • grahamgraham

    I've always found the wording of the "but for" test confusing so here's how I think about the case in my own words:

    • The whole thing was Hanke's fault because he didn't pay close enough attention to which tank he was filling.
    • The accident WAS NOT reasonably forseeable by the manufacturer. Maybe the gas and water tanks were close together and looked similar, but apparently they were labelled and if Hanke had been paying proper attention, he wouldn't have mixed them up.
    • The BattleCard saying that the accident WAS NOT reasonably forseeable is the reason the "but for" test had to be used, and not the "material contribution" test. (The next BattleCard, for part (d), asks you to state when the "material contribution" test can be used. The 2nd requirement is that the accident MUST BE reasonably forseeable. Since it wasn't you can't use the "material contribution" test.)
  • stratthixxstratthixx

    Ah I see. This helps, thanks!

  • wilsonchan18wilsonchan18

    Hi,

    So can I say that because that the water and gas tank should have labelled differently, therefore it is not reasonably foreseeable. And so the "But for" test is applied.

    "But for" means "even not", so even the 2 tanks not being arranged as closes as they are, would the explosion still occur? And the answer is yes? because its not the design fault, but the negligence for not giving proper attention by plaintiff when filling up the machine? Therefore it failed the but for test?

    I here try to convince myself about how this actually fail the "but for test"?

    Thanks and Cheers,
    Wilson

  • grahamgraham
    edited August 2021

    Yes, the "but for" test is applied because the accident was not reasonably forseeeable.

    The question that must be asked for the "but for" test is:

    • Would the accident still have happened but for the action/omission of the defendant (manufacturer)

    The answer is yes. The accident still would have happened because the plaintiff (Hanke) was careless, not because of the design of the Zamboni. The conclusion is that the defendant is not liable.

  • wilsonchan18wilsonchan18

    Right, crystal clear. Thanks Graham! :smile:

  • cornedovcornedov

    Below is an excerpt I found online that talks about the requirements of the materially contributes test:

    First, it must be impossible for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury using the “but for” test. The impossibility must be due to factors that are outside of the plaintiff’s control; for example, current limits of scientific knowledge. Second, it must be clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and the plaintiff must have suffered that form of injury. In other words, the plaintiff’s injury must fall within the ambit of the risk created by the defendant’s breach. In those exceptional cases where these two requirements are satisfied, liability may be imposed, even though the “but for” test is not satisfied, because it would offend basic notions of fairness and justice to deny liability by applying a “but for” approach.

    I’m having trouble seeing the linkage between that accident being reasonably foreseeable(the second requirement given in the battle cards) and the second requirement in the excerpt above. I also looked at the examiners report for spring 2014 and their second requirement appears to be different from the accident being reasonably foreseeable.

    I don’t have the CAS study kit yet and so maybe it’s presented differently in the study kit but I was wondering if you could help me understand this gap?

  • Staff-T1Staff-T1

    I don't see the discrepancy here.

    "must be clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and the plaintiff must have suffered that form of injury" Reasonably foreseeable would fall under this section here. If steps were not take to mitigate a reasonably foreseeable outcome, then a duty of care owed would be breached.

    Exposing a claimant to unreasonable risk would also fall under reasonably foreseeable. If an outcome was reasonably foreseeable and not mitigated, then that means the claimant would have been exposed to unreasonable risk. The battlecards worded the answer in the examiner's report differently, but seems acceptable to me as the main theme of the paper is foreseeability and causation

Sign In or Register to comment.