Occupiers' Liability

Fundamentals	Special Considerations	Exceptions
Those who occupy land or a premises owe a duty of care to those who enter their property. Generally, an occupier of premises in Ontario owes a duty to do what is reasonable in all circumstances to see that persons entering the property are not injured by the condition of, or the activities on, the premises.	Reinforced in the Ontario Occupiers' Liability Act, 1980. Standard of care is assessed in each situation in light of what should reasonably be expected of occupiers in the situation. For example, Hotels have a higher standard of care for guests than landowners have for snowmobilers on their property.	Entrants who willingly assume risks. Entrants who enter the property with the intent to commit a crime. * Although these entrants are still owed a duty of care, they will not be protected to the same degree as other entrants to the property.

Strict Liability

Fundamentals	Special Considerations	Exceptions
Those who carry on dangerous activities or keep dangerous materials on their property are held to a higher standard of care than ususal. It is felt that by knowingly permitting a dangerous circumstance to exist, a person accepts liability for almost any foreseeable damage that might result.	The standard can be so high that virtually any mistake made can be considered negligent.	The notion of strict liability has not been overly expanded by the courts, however some legislatures have at times enacted laws to replace strict liability on those who create extraordinary risks, especially manufacturers of dangerous products.

Professional Malpractice

Fundamentals	Special Considerations	Exceptions
A professional is expected to exercise the skill, ability, and expertise that would reasonably be expected of the average practitioner in that profession. Although professionals are not expected to be perfect, they can be held liable for damage which results from conduct falling below professional standards.	Doctors, as one example, must not only take proper care, but they must also inform patients of the procedures and risks associated with a given treatment.	At one time, non-medical practitioners were protected by contract law. However, more recently case law has established that non-medical practitioners can be held liable for damage caused to their clients, as well as to others who might rely on their expertise.

Product Liability

Fundamentals	Special Considerations	Exceptions
Manufacturers are liable for damage caused by defects in their products.	A manufacturer's liability extends not only to the purchasers of the product, but to anyone who might suffer damage from the defective product. A manufacturer is still responsible for a product after it has been distributed and sold to the public. Thus, defective products are often recalled at great expense to avoid potential lawsuits.	There are no common exceptions to this form of liability.

Liability for Auto Accidents

Fundamentals	Special Considerations	Exceptions
Provincial Highway Traffic Acts set out basic standards of care for the operation of motor vehicles. Drivers of motor vehicles owe a standard of care to their passengers and other motorsits or pedestrians who they might injur.	In the case of inury to a pedestrian or a cyclist, the Highway Trafic Act places the onus on the driver to prove that he/she was not negligent. Owners of motor vehicles are jointly responsible for damage caused by their vehicle under the operation of another driver. Drivers who accept payment for rides owe a higher standard of care to passengers than those who do not accept payment.	Owners of vehicles can escape liability for the actions of one who operates their vehicle without their knowledge or consent. In some provinces, passengers who accept a ride for free are expected to accept a reasonable risk that the driver might make a mistake. Gross negligence would have to be proven in such cases if the plaintiff is to collect damages.

Vicarious Liability

Fundamentals	Special Considerations	Exceptions
Automobile owners who are responsible for the actions of others who might operate their vehicle, or employers who are responsible for the actions of their employees, are both examples of "vicarious" liability.	Each case will be judged individually. The reasonable standard of care of a vicarious third party will be assessed differently in each case. The vicarious party, such as the employer or the car owner, can in fact sue the individual who caused the damage, such as the driver or the employee, for any damages that were paid to injured parties.	As each case is judged individually, different circumstances may serve as a reasonable defence in situations of vicarious liability. For example, a car owner may not be responsible for the actions of one who borrows his/her car without knowledge or permission.