Evaniuk v

.docx

School

Toronto Metropolitan University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

406

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by CoachOxide16318 on coursehero.com

LAW 406 -TORTS Evaniuk v. 79846 Manitoba Inc. 1.What evidentiary issues are before the court? -Whether the employers are vicariously liable for the actions of the doormen in the employ -Whether or not the doormen were acting within the scope of their employment -whether the force used was excessive 2. How does the court resolve them? -By determining the scope of the employment and what instructions were given. -by determining the extent of the injuries and what caused the injuries. 3. What legal tools does the judge use to determine the question of legal responsibility? -The closely connected test -precedent in Lockhart 4. How does the judge apply the legal tools? -by applying the principle found in Lockhart -By finding that the employer and doormen are in a master / servant relationship. As such the master is found to be responsible for the acts of the servant even though the acts were not specifically authorised by the master. The employer is responsible in this case for the method in which the plaintiff was escorted out of the bar. 5. How does the judge determine what harm was suffered? -Based on the examination by Dr Hamwee the judge determined that she had suffered multiple bruises, a re-aggravated back injury, and was suffering from lingering pain in her wrist. -disinterested third party experts lend additional weight to a claim 6. How does the judge value the harm in monetary terms? -The judge accepted the “fair and reasonable” amount of $10,000 submitted by the plaintiff’s counsel. 7. What are the different kinds of damages identified by the judge as compensable? -$10,000 for the injuries sustained in the first place -$1000 allowance for loss of opportunity to invest the $10,000 -$450 plus pre-trial interest in special damages -Costs 8. What damages are rejected by the judge? -Exemplary and punitive damages 9. Why are they rejected? -the altercation would reasonably have attracted attention from the doormen.
LAW 406 -TORTS -The force used in escorting the plaintiff to the door was not excessive -the subsequent excessive force outside the door is not isolated from the reasonable force used to escort her to the door. -There was no evidence that the defendant had ever authorised the use of excessive force. 10. What are costs? Blacks – charges or fees taxed by the courts 11. How are costs evaluated? Blacks - Filing fees, jury fees, courthouse fees, and reporter fees 12 Why didn’t the plaintiff sue the doormen? -the doormen were not acting on their own behalf, they were acting on behalf of their employer. -If found liable, the doormen would have been unlikely to pay the damages. The better course of action is to seek damages against the employer because they are an incorporated business, likely to have insurance, and thus better able to pay damages 13. Why didn’t the plaintiff sue Laura? -Notwithstanding the fact that Laura’s action of throwing the drink was part of the chain of events that ultimately led to the plaintiff’s injuries, it is not reasonable to hold her liable for the injuries because they were an unforeseen event, and the two are not causally related.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help