solution

A seventy-year-old woman, using the escalator at the airport, dropped a glove. When she attempted to pick it up, she lost her balance and fell. As a result of the accident, she suffered a fractured vertebra (back-bone). In an action by her against the company which had the responsibility of maintaining the escalator, the defendant company would argue which of the following for its best defence?

a. It did not owe her a duty of care

b. There were no damages suffered

c. Provocation

d. Its conduct was not below the standard of care

e. All of the above

Jed played hockey for the local team. During the game Jed was intentionally hit in the back with a stick by Sam, a player on the other team. Jed was injured and sued Sam. Which of the following is true?

a. The plaintiff’s most likely cause of action would be negligence.

b. The plaintiff’s most likely cause of action would be deceit.

c. The defendant’s best defence would be that he consented to the hit.

d. The defendant’s best defence would be qualified privilege.

e. The defendant’s best defence would be provocation.

With regard to the law of negligence which of the following is false?

a. If the court finds that the plaintiff was 40% and the defendant 60% responsible for the plaintiff’s loss, the plaintiff cannot recover the 40% from the defendant.

b. The Occupier’s Liability Act sets the standard of care owed by the occupier, namely, to take reasonable care that any person is reasonably safe.

c. To win his action in negligence, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.

d. If you hurt someone and are sued for negligence, a possible defence is that you didn’t intend to hurt the person.

e. If you are negligent and cause damage to another, a possible defence is that the other voluntarily took the risk.