Obligations Extra-Contractuelles

Obligations Extra-K (Prémont) 1

OUTLINE

Prof. Marie-Claude Prémont

Winter 2006

9.Public Authorities

Barratt c. Corp. of North Vancouver [cml] [judiciary only review policy implementation]

Prud’homme c. Prud’homme [cvl] [CCQ = droit commun ; defamation; cml defense not apply]

10.Damages: Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Compensatory Damages (Restitutio in Integrum)

Punitive/Exemplary Damages

Victim’s Obligation to minimize the prejudice (cml + cvl)

Augustus c. Gossett [cvl] [factors in indemnification of moral prejudice]

Corriveau c. Pelletier [cvl] [girl-nurse scars, moderation of quantum of damages]

Type of Prejudices

11.Causation

11.1.Proof on Balance of Probabilities: legal and factual presumptions

Barrett v. Chelsea Hospital Mgmt [cml] [NOT sufficient proof for causation]

Gburek c. Cohen [cvl] [sufficient proof, rebuttable presumption of fault]

McGhee c. National Coal Board [cml] [sufficient proof, increases risk, inference of causation]

Smith c. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [cml] [molten metal agent in causing cancer]

Farrell v. Snell [cml] [medical malpractice: indirect proof allow inference of causality]

Walker c. York Finch Hospital [cml] [negligence materially contribute to injury]

11.2.Indeterminate Tortfeasor

11.2.1.Common Fault

Ginn c. Sisson [cvl] [common fault, identify 1 boy on factual presumption]

Morin c. Blais [cvl] [infraction of norms, common fault]

Cook c. Lewis [cml] [common fault, burden shifts, both hunters liable]

11.2.2.Contribution & Market Share Thesis

Sindell c. Abbott Laboratories [cml] [negligent defs bear cost by market share thesis]

11.2.3.Multiple Tortfeasors

A. Solidarity (Equal Conditions)

B. Efficient/Adequate Cause (sine qua non)

C. Immediate Cause

12.Defenses

12.1.Victim’s Fault

Comparative Negligence

Contributory Negligence (old cml doctrine)

12.2.Assumption of the Risk

Woodley v. Metropolitan Railway [cml] [“voluntarily” assented to risk of RR track]

Price c. Roy [cvl] [iced bridge, no voluntary assent]

Lambert v Lastoplex [cml] [manufacturer liable where not detail risk to consumer]

Birch v Thomas [cml] [proper notice, thus Plf assumed risk]

Roy c. École d’escalade [cvl] [inherently dangerous, assume risk, but prove negligence]

12.3.Common Employment (Fellow-Servant) (old cml)

Hall v. Johnson and another [cml] [employer not liable for underlooker injuring miner]

13.SPECIAL REGIME: Work Accidents

13.1.History: Crisis of Civil Liability at the turn of the century

Report of the Wainwright Commission, 1909 [judges ask legislators to remedy the inequity]

Tunc, La Responsabilité Civile, “19e et 20e siècles”

J.C. Lamothe, Responsabilité du patron dans les accidents du travail (1905)

MC Prémont, “François Gény et les enjeux de la resp civile”

Historique de la transformation des régimes d’assurance

Les employeurs eux-mêmes demandent changement au régime fondé sur la risque

Transformation: Faute  Risque

Mutation du régime juridique: assistance/charité  protection légale

13.2.Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases

Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases

Processus de réclamation (Me Katherine Lippel)

Vincent & Co. Inc. c. Gallo [cvl] [Court not have jurisdiction to hear case]

Chaput c. STCUM [cvl] [a. 28 legal presumption of employment injury]

Succ. de Guillemette c. J.M. Asbestos [cvl] [a. 29 legal presumption occupational disease]

14.SPECIAL REGIME: Auto Accidents

Automobile Insurance Act

Civil Liability

T. Rousseau-Houle, «Le régime québecois d’assurance-automobile, vingt ans après» (1998)

S.D. Sugarman, ”Québec’s Comprehensive Auto No-Fault Scheme and the Failure of any of the United States to Follow” (1998)

D. Gardner, “Comparer l’incomparable: les indemnité pour préjudice corporel en droit commun et dans la Loi sur l’assurance automobile,” (1998)

“Deux Millions de Chauffeurs à risque?” Le Devoir (2003)

Controverse. Le Principe du no fault. (2003)

15.Charter Issues: where «droit commun» and strict liability meet

Beliveau St-Jacques c Fed. [cvl] [civil immunity bars action for exemplary damages]

16.Other Sources of ECO (1458)

Cie immobilière Viger c Giguère [cvl] [unjustified enrichment in qc cvl]

April 2000 Exam

CCLC-CCQ

SAAQ

Mis-feasance/Non-feasance

Fault

Risk

Work Accident

Obligations Extra-K (Prémont) 1

REVIEW

Civil standard of proof: on the balance of probabilities

applies to all elements: prejudice, causality, etc

Causality

ex: Snell: here, all elements clear, except that impossible to demonstrate the cause scientifically. thus, judge proceeds by proof by factual presumption: there was an error (ie, not stopping the operation after the hemhorrage), that could cause precisely this risk, thus accepts the proof on the factual presumption
ex: Centre Hospitalier: if the doctor had come, would not have been able to save patient. thus lacking element of causality, even though the fault was clear.
presumption:make an inference from a known fact to an unknown fact (CCQ ___)
ex: Walker: even in complex situation, systemic phenomenon

Fault

standard of reasonable person (same in cvl & cml): not demand perfection, objective standard, may depend on professional skills
cml: fault not valid against everyone, only valid against those to whom owe a duty of care
cml: ie, Donoghue: neighbor = those to whom owe duty of care
cvl: everyone is your neighbor, fault valid against all persons to whom caused a direct & immediate prejudice
fault’s connection with other elements:

Duty of care

ex: Palsgraf: fault clear, but no duty of care.

Prejudice

cvl: prejudice direct & immediate result of fault, even if unforeseeable (1611)
cml: foreseeability of resulting injury, which may be direct or indirect (Wagon Mound #1)

Causality

ex: Palsgraf: Andrews’ dissent: RR cie had duty of care to all passengers. Palsgraf’s injury as direct result of RR cie’s negligence.

**Public Authorities**

ex: Prud’homme c Prud’homme: public discourse. action in defamationbased on 1457. (cml: intentional tort of defamation).
Qc Act had divided private & public law, BUT, here have meeting of private & public law (comparesLaurentide under CCLC)
CCQ = droit commun. not using cml to say that CCQ applies, but CCQ itself, le droit commun, says rules of private law apply to public authorities.
ex: Barratt : political decisions not subject to judicial review for civil liability, only the implementation of the policy

Ceiling for Non-Pecuniary Damages

non-pecuniary damages may or may not be limited to simply moral prejudices
restitutio in integrum: applies to pecuniary damages only
cml: pecuniary and non-pecuniary injury
cvl: moral prejudice
material, bodily injury  pecuniary + non-pecuniary prejudice

ex: Defamation

ceiling not apply to non-pecuniary injury re: defamation
ex: lose your job. have moral prejudice  pecuniary loss (ie, no more salary) + non-pecuniary moral prejudice (ie, can’t sleep at night)

Joint liability : operates to the benefit of the victim

“refonte du CCQ,” and not reform of CCQ

ex of refonte: le fait autonome des choses was not in CCLC, but yes in CCQ
Fitzpatrick J. in Doucet
ie, reflecting the actual state of the law
DO A SEARCH FOR “RISK” or “RISK THEORY” in all notes to consolidate all aspects

punitive damages = exemplary damages

Charter and Work Accidents

Prémont: should be mechanisms to intervene right away, and prevent the lesion prof from happening in the first place. HERE, victim should approach the Commission of Human Rights to stop the sexual harrassment before the injury materializes.
once the lesion occurs, and can be qualified as lesion prof, then the Charter action is barred.
ex: Beliveau St-Jacques: the physical & psychological incapacity to work was at stake, which was a result of the sexual harrassment. thus, sexual harrassment itself was not at issue, “just” the injury suffered.

Defenses: Accepting Risks

does NOT apply to work accidents

Work & Car Accidents

definitions important (work: 28, 29, 30) (car: bodily injury)
principle

Examen décembre

Question 1

Question 1A

pollution d’automobile

victimes: personnes âgées  plus fragiles (thin skull rule applies in cml & cvl)
recours collectif (les demandeurs)
chacune des demandeurs doit démontrer tout les éléments de la preuve
qui sont les responsables?
l’automobiliste  c’est qui?
défendeur doit être la personne responsable
la cause est le cumule des actions
la causalité des actions des automobilistes: sont-ils la cause?
recours sans faute? recours pour faute?
quelle est la faute de l’automobiliste? leur comportement normal ne peut pas être considéré comme une faute
responsabilité stricte? troubles de voisinage?doit être entre voisins, les automobilistes ne sont pas des voisins
duty of care only an accessory compared to the major elements (?)
les responsables? les villes, les autorités gouvernementales
faut identifier la faute
défaut de réglementation
responsabilité contre l’action publique
Kamloops, Dorset Yacht: oui, l’autorité publique peuvent faire l’objet d’un recours, mais la responsabilité est limité aux dimensions opérationelles des autorités publiques  cannot force them to adopt a particular law or policy (thus cannot accuse municipality of fault for not having implemented a certain policy)
les responsables? les manufacturiers
citer les provisions de la responsabilité des manufacturiers dans le Code civil (!)
défaut de fabrication?
problèmes insolubles de responsabilité civile

Question 1B

populations du nord, recouvrir les coûts d’achat dans les supermarchés

pure economic loss: gibier n’appartient à personne (cvl pas de problème, cml peut être un problème, Sask. Wheat Pool)
problématique centrale: quelle est la cause du diminution du gibier? doit démontrer un long chemin de causalité (mais il faut démontrer la causalité directe et immédiat en droit cvl – ici, impossible, on est à l’antithèse)

Question 1C

mondialisation, délocalisation d’entreprises, transport augmenté

délocalisation cause transport de marchandises comme source d’émisssions de gaz
les personnes qui perdent leur job – est-ce qu’ils disposent d’un recours? pas de lien.
difficulté de cml par rapport à la perte purement économique  type de comportement que l’on retrouve est le comportement prototypique de notre système capitaliste (donc, pas une faute)
où est la faute de l’entreprise de répondre à la compétivité? pas de faute, pas de recours.
régime de chômage pour les personnes qui perdent leur emploi
comprendre l’étendue de l’application des règles
contre les autorités gouvernementales? cannot say that it was a fault for the country to sign the international trade agmt
difficult to prove any of the elements of a recours civil

Question 2

Holmes adapté aux défits du 20e siècle (resp pour négligence)?

resp qui recherche la cause directe et immédiat, par rapport aux problèmes dans la question 1, aucun de ces enjeux sociaux ne peut être dans quelconque façon résolu par la responsabilité pour faute
enjeux trop complexes
«public profits by individual activity» 
are Holmes’ hypotheses valid? based on time of industrialization
responsabilité ne doit pos être imposé à cet entrepreneur, not strictly liiable, only based on fault, prejudice must lie where it falls

Question 2A

à l’époque de Holmes, l’industrialisation

bienfait: Horwitz. modification de resp stricte  faute, subvention industrielle
méfait: workers rarely get indemnification for work accident (travailleurs qui ont subventionné l’industrialisation)

Question 2B

à l’époque de Holmes

cml

Holmes décrit un droit qui est en redéfinition. nominate torts. resp pour faute – il justifie.
citer des exemples et un contre-exemply comme Rylands c Fletcher. fondé sur la resp stricte. ou les recours de nuisance sans faute - mais le critère varie selon les quartiers.

cvl

resp pour faute existe depuis toujours (depuis le droit commun). Tooke c Bergeron.
resp sans faute inscrit au CCBC 1053 resp du fait des choses, la théorie du risque
Doucet: juge Fitzpatrick

Question 3

ville en Qc, l’entreprise Abitor (seulement cvl)

Question 3A

recours pour la perte de valeur de sa maison

1e question: cause de la perte de la valeur? deux causes:
l’usine ferme ses portes, plus d’emploi dans la municipalité, plus de demande
la contamination de l’eau
recours pour la cause que l’usine ferme ses portes
n’a rien à voir avec sa position comme employé dans l’usine  recours généraux pour faute
est-ce qu’il y a une faute de l’usine d’avoir fermé ses portes? a priori, non. entreprise est libre d’ouvrir et de fermer.
Abitor lied during the mayoral election campaign, but can change its mind, perhaps made miscalculation, sold its shares, etc
if said that Abitor deliberately lied, and knew that mayor would act and Abitor would reap benefits
recours pour la cause de contamination de l’eau
contamination du lac peut être une faute. mettre des éléments dangéreux dans l’eau, c’est une faute.

Question 3B

recours pour la contamination de l’eau du lac

1457: recours pour faute
oui, faute dans la contamination. déversement dans le lac, faute par rapport à la personne raisonnables. normes environmentales. contravention d’une norme.
quelle est la conséquence de contamination de l’eau du lac? diminution de la valeur du maison, la santé du bébé.
où est la préjudice? must be able to diagnose a health problem in the baby directly due to drinking contaminated water. préjudice doit être certain en droit civil.
la causalité: les présomptions de fait (mercure dans l’usine, mercure dans le lac)
est-ce que Mme Lingot avait droit de boire l’eau du lac? faute contributive de sa part?

Question 3C

$3,000 taxes

recours contre qui?
contre Abitor?
Abitor n’a pas adopté la politique fiscale
pas de lien direct et immédiate
contre conseil municipal
la cause d’augmentation de taxes = conseil municipal qui a adopté la politique fiscale
promesse électorale
adopter un règlement ne constitue pas une faute, donc pas de recours
est-ce que c’est une préjudice? payer les impôts ne constitue pas une préjudice.

Breakdown of Grades

Travail 1 15%

Travail 2 15%

Examen Dec 30%

Examen Avril 40%

Travail 2

thème
l’historique du Duty of Care en cml
la dynamique du recours collectif en droit civil (?)
submit theme to Prémont

9. Public Authorities

liability of public authorities

ELEMENTS: PUBLIC AUTHORITY

actor = public authority?
can be individual, or organism
cvl: rules of civil liability apply (1376) (Prud’homme v Prud’homme)
cml: yes, where assume the duty of care (Kamloops v Nielsen, )
municipality only had duty to lay, no duty to maintain, the roads (Barrat v N Vancouver)
securities regsitrar not liable where did not assume the duty of care (Cooper v Hobart)
municipal had duty to maintain roads in reasonable state of repair (Housen v Nikolaisen)
relevant statute?
provides immunity?
cml: establishes duty of care?
substance v. operations/applications/implementation (Barratt v N Vancouver)
standard of reasonable person applies to implementation
do NOT evaluate the substance

resp civile  cours de droit privé
droit public: droit constitutionnel, droit criminel
droit privé: obs K-uelles, obs extra-K-uelles

règles de resp civile s’appliquent aux autorité publiques
individus: fonctionnaires, policiers, conseiller municipal
organismes: municipalité, ministère, commission scolaire (Dorset Yacht v Home Office)

 distinctions à faireentre recours contre personne privé et personne publique

a) STATUTE: organismes publiques régi presque toujours par les règles de droit

possibly provides immunity for certain actions ?
establishes a duty of care ?
ex: policier: en Qc, loi sur la police, prévoit les fonctions, lui accordent des immunités
ex: débat parlementaire: immunité pour les paroles (notamment re: recours en diffamation)
ex: Cooper c Hobart: objective not to protect investors
ex: Barratt c N Vancouver: municipality ≠ insurer

b) est-ce que l’organisme publique a fait tout possible pour prévenir la préjudice?

**hold to standard of reasonable person re: operations/applications/implementation

 distinguish b/t public policy and operations/applications/implementation

question financière
ce n’est pas aux tribunaux de déterminer ce que les autorités publiques doivent faire
different heads of power – judiciary cannot intervene in public policy (ie, legislative powers)
no formal separation of powers, but still respect difference and judiciary cannot intervene in executive or legislative heads of power (contrary to parliamentary democracy)

Les Organismes Publics

municipalities, school commissions, police officers

 distinction selon les pouvoirs:

pouvoir judiciaire:
juge protégé par l’immunité consacrée par les règles générales du droit public
pouvoir executif/administratif
exercice s’attache parfois à un pouvoir législatif, et parfois plutôt exécutif (tribunaux essayent de distinguer)
l’aspect opérationelle peut faire objet de resp. civile
Roncarelli not relevant per Prémont b/c question of droit public, not resp civile
PPP: partnerariat public privé (?)
Université McGill public ou privé ?
pouvoir législatif/règlementaire:
immunité de responsabilité civile
la souveraineté parlementaire
municipalités; organisme délibératif par sa nature favorise quelques parties et défavorise d’autres parties
ex: Qc adopte resp. stricte re: accidents d’automobiles; ex: Qc adopte assurance maladie obligatoire  répercussions pour les cies d’assurance privées

CCQ 1376: The rules set forth in this Book apply to the State and its bodies, and to all

other legal persons established in the public interest, subject to any other rules of

law which may be applicable to them.

tribunals se posent la question  quelle serait l’impacte financière pour A ou pour B?

tribunaux assurent que les normes sont appliqués d’une façon de respecter la constitution, la Charte
judiciary cannot dictate what the legislature must do

Barratt c. Corp. of North Vancouver [cml] [judiciary only review policy implementation]

[1980] 2 R.C.S. 418
Faits /

Barratt rode bicycle on heavily travelled road, ran into pothole filled w/ dirty water, injured
municipality inspected roads every fortnight, pothole did not exist at last inspection

Questions en litige /

municipality negligent?

Dispositif /

Analyse / Martland J.

pothole was product of ordinary wear & tear of traffic, and thus NOT a cause of the excavation work going on
per Municipal Act, municipality has authority to lay out, maintain and improve highways, but does NOT have duty to maintain its highways, ie, NO duty to institute system of continuous inspection and immediate repair
municipality had well-organized system of road inspection, and did not act negligently in implementation of its policy
frequency of inspection is a matter of policy, not law

Ratio /

court can only intervene in implementation of policy, not in the content/creation of the policy itself

Comments /

court did not interfere w/ inspection frequency b/c this has great financial ramifications
100 yrs ago: “the King can do no wrong” thus general immunity for the King, English common law as applied in Canada
COMPAREHousen c. Nikolaisen
municipality negligent: “la norme de diligence à laquelle devait se conformer la municipalité consistait à tenir le chemin dans un état raisonnable d’entretien, de façon que ceux qui devaient l’emprunter puissent, en prenant des précautions normales, y circuler en sécurité.”

ELEMENTS: DEFAMATION

cml: nominate tort of defamation founded on principles of strict liability (ie, not have to show fault, only have to show that words pronounced were of a nature to harm reputation)
cvl: ???

Prud’homme c. Prud’homme [cvl] [CCQ = droit commun ; defamation; cml defense not apply]

[2002] 4 R.C.S. 663
Faits /

action in defamation re: words spoken by municipal councillor during ordinary session of conseil municipal
secondary school construction project: overpaid for land, municipality very much in debt
reglement 1055 instituted (higher taxes), ruled illegal by superior court, but mayor wants to keep
appellants bringing action against conseiller municipal for defamation

Questions en litige /

municipal councillor liable in defamation?

Dispositif /

No, no fault, thus not liable for defamation.

Analyse / L’Heureux-Dubé et Lebel J.

CCLC 356: public authorities subject to droit public, but NOW, CCQ 1376: Book V Obligations applies to the State of Qc, subject to other laws, thus plf must prove same elements (CCQ does NOT apply to federal organisms)
actions of conseiller municipal fell within the cadre of the exercise of his public function, not in his capacity as private person
Code= ledroit commun du Québec (disposition préliminaire) (ie, public + private)
action in defamation falls under CCQ 1457,
action in defamationbrings into play two fundamental values: freedom of expression (Qc Charter, 3) and the right to reputation (droits de personnalité)
elected municipal official must act per standard of reasonable person
2 common law defenses:

relative immunity:

words spoken during session of conseil municipal protected by relative immunity, and plf must prove the malicious intention or intent to harm of the councillor
relative immunity can also apply to non-public actors, thus must distinguish b/t private common law and public common law
nominate tort of defamation founded on principles of strict liability (ie, not have to show fault, only have to show that words pronounced were of a nature to harm reputation)
because based on opposite principles (malveillance v bonne foi) cannot import defense of relative immunity into droit civil
cvl equivalent of defense of relative immunity = “une simple défense de justification qui invoque a priori l’absence de faute de l’élu, compte tenu de ses fonctions, des devoirs qu’elles supposent et des circonstances particulières en l’espèce.”

fair comment (la défense de commentaire loyal et honnête)

accepted as cvl defense, BUT:
conduct accords with standard of reasonable person?
cml: words at issue must be in the public interest, in good faith, and without malice (and facts to which the commentary/opinion attached must be true)
cml defense INCOMPATIBLE w/ cvl

application of rules to facts

content of the declaration:
has the right to question the court’s judgment
assertions partially true and partially false
critiqued the well-founded nature of the judgment (ie, legitimate opinion)
no bad faith, no malice, when placed in CONTEXT
acted in good faith, in the public interest, and did NOT commit a fault

Ratio /

defenses of relative immunity and fair comment NOT applicable in cvl b/c incompatible with determination of fault under CCQ 1457
here, not liable for defamation in cvl b/c not acting in bad faith

Comments

9.Damages: Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Compensatory Damages(restituo in integrum)

restitutio in integrum: restoration to original condition

cvl + cml: past and future injury must have a certain character proven on the balance of the probabilities
cvl: compensate loss sustained, and profits of which deprived, including certain, assessable future injury (1611)
bodily, material, moral injury which is immediate & direct consequence of debtor’s fault (1607)

cml: compensate past damages & future losses (single recovery rule)
medical & related expenses; lost earnings & earning capacity; pain & suffering (incl loss of enjoyment of life)
only recover damages for foreseeable injury (incl both direct & indirect prejudice)
cvl + cml: CAP on moral prejudice (non-econonic loss) of $100K in 1978
exception à l’exception: plafonnement pour préjudice moral ne tient pas en matière de diffamation (atteinte à la réputation, dignité) source du préjudice est moral même si le préjudice peut être matériel (ie, perte d’emploi)

Punitive/Exemplary Damages

cml: punitive damages  partie de son histoire, existe depuis longtemps
cvl:limited. new phenomenon.

au Québec (mais pas en France?):
Qc Charte des droits et libertés: art. 49(2) demander des dommages exemplaires
CCQ 1621:where the awarding of punitive damages is provided for by law, the amountof such damages may not exceed what is sufficient to fulfil their preventive purpose.
Punitive damages are assessed in the light of all the appropriate circumstances, inparticular the gravity of the debtor's fault, his patrimonial situation, the extent of thereparation for which he is already liable to the creditor and, where such is the case,the fact that the payment of the damages is wholly or partly assumed by a thirdperson.

Victim’s Obligation to minimize the prejudice (cml + cvl)

CCQ 1479: A person who is liable to reparation for an injury is not liable in respect of any aggravation of the injury that the victim could have avoided.

 affaire d’un quadriplégique (??)