Business & Finance Homework

16

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 [1946]

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?