tortswith professor vincent（tortswith教授文森特）.docVIP

Torts with Professor Vincent Compiled by Melanie Rempel Differences Between Criminal Law Tort Law Evaniuk case - What damage has been done? Personal injury. - Under what tort does she have a case? Battery (trespass). Battery: harmful or offensive physical contact Assault: in tort law, closer to verbal abuse (less than battery) in criminal law, it means battery - What would be the possible defences? - Could they argue that they were just doing their job/they had a right to remove her? 1. She is, initially, not a trespasser - first, she would have to be informed that she was no longer welcome ~ then she would become a trespasser 2. Can only use reasonable force in removing trespassers - Why doesn’t Ms. Evaniuk sue the bouncers? Because they can’t pay. - no personal wealth (private means) - probably don’t have liability insurance *The main question in a tort action: is it going to achieve more than it will cost; does it pay to bother? - a major part of tort action on the part of the plaintiff is choosing the best defendant(s) ~ those that can pay - so, Ms. Evaniuk decides to sue their employer - usually self-insured, carry liability insurance - one option is to assert that the employer didn’t do a good enough job of supervising their employees - then they could be sued ‘in their own right’ - tort: negligence ~ you have to prove FAULT Three places/stages employers can go wrong: 1. Hiring 2. Training 3. Supervising - no evidence of this in the Evaniuk case - another option: sue because of vicarious liability - doesn’t depend on fault - in this case, the employer is responsible for the actions of its employees (so long as they are acting in the course of duty, the scope of their employment) - still must show causation (cause-in-fact), requires proof that the employees are in fact liable; only then can vicarious liability be proven - Why are the employers to blame? If they profit from such activity, they should be made