Special Topics in Negligence

• Author: Philip H. Osborne
• Pages: 145-264

145

CHAPTER 3

SPECIAL TOPICS IN

NEGLIGENCE

A. INTRODUCTION

Negligence law is not static. It is constantly in f‌lu x, adjusting to new activ-

ities, unusual fact situations, shifts in societal attitudes, unusual losses,

and the public’s increasing demands for protection from risk-laden con-

duct. In the past few decades, imaginative and innovative lawyers have

pushed the envelope of negligence liability to secure greater and greater

protection of their clients. In this chapter, a number of special and top-

ical issues are considered in more depth. Most illustrate the moulding

of negligence principles to new claims, new situations, new losses, or

new defendants. Some concern the interaction between legislative regu-

lation and negligence principles and the accountability of governmental

institutions. Another involves the legislative codif‌ication of negligence

principles that has taken place in the f‌ield of occupiers’ liability. Others

relate to the manner in which negligence law has addressed the unique

aspects of various professional activities. Collectively they illustrate the

inherent f‌lexibility of negligence law, the inf‌luence of social policy, and

the dynamism of the fault concept, and they point to the future develop-

ment of the law of negligence in this century.

THE LAW OF TORTS146

B. PRODUCTS LIABILITY

The mass production and consumption of consumer products in the

twentieth century presented a considerable challenge to tort law. Neg-

ligence law responded to this challenge, and the initial duty to take

reasonable care to manufacture products that are free of dangerous

defects — recognized in Donoghue v Stevenson1 — has been comple-

mented by a duty to warn of the inherent dangers of products and a

duty to design products with reasonable care. Courts have, however,

proceeded more cautiously in respect of the duty to warn a nd to design

with care. The reason is that manufacturing defects normally arise

in isolated rogue products. The defect is the result of a mistake or

malfunction in the defendant’s manufacturing or quality control sys-

tems. In practice, therefore, the extent of liability will not normally be

unmanageable or overly burdensome. In contrast, li abil ity arising from

a failure to warn of inherent dangers or a failure to use reasonable care

to design a safe product may condemn a complete line of the defend-

ant’s products and may place undue burdens on manufacturers.2 This

differentiation among the obligations of ma nufact urers is also ref‌lected,

in a different way, in American product liability law. Strict liability is

the norm for manufacturing defect cases but, in cases of design f‌laws

and a failure to warn, fault is often required.

1) Manufacturing Defects

The modern law of products liability began with a defective bottle of

ginger beer and the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. Lord Atkin stated:

[A] manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to

show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the

form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of inter-

mediate examination, and with the knowledge that absence of rea-

sonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will

result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to

the consumer to take reasonable care.3

1 M’Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson, [1932] AC 562 (HL) [Donoghue].

2 Class act ions are increasingly com mon where many consumers have bee n put

at risk by a fai lure to warn of dangers or a failu re of design. See, for example,

Andersen v St Jud e Medical Inc, 2012 ONSC 3660, dealing with Sil zone-coated

prosthetic heart valves.

3 Donoghue, above note 1 at 599.

Special Topics in Negligenc e147

This passage outlines the primary obligation of manufacturers. It is to

take reasonable care that their products are manufactured in compli-

ance with their intended sp ecif‌ications and design and that they are not

dangerously defective.

Lord Atkin’s formulation of this duty of care was expressed in cau-

tious and guarded ter ms. His language ref‌lected both the novelty of the

case and the state of negligence law at that time. His expression of the

scope of the manufacturer’s duty has now been loosened and broad-

ened in almost every conceivable way.

The duty of care extends to all consumer and commercial prod-

ucts, including buildings. The requirement in Donoghue that the prod-

uct must reach the consumer in the same form in which it left the

manufacturer initially gave rise to suggestions that the product must

be in a sealed package or bottle. Now it is taken to ref‌lect the normal

requirement of cause-in-fact and the need to show that the damage

was caused by the manufacturer’s negligence and not by the negligence

of some other person or by the normal deterioration of the product

through wear and tear. The suggestion, in the case, that the defendant

would be protected from liability if the defect could be discovered by

an intermediate examination of the product by a third party or the

plaintiff ref‌lected the prevailing judicial attitude to intervening acts

and to contributory negligence. Today, the failure of a third party, such

as a retailer, to discover a defect by reasonable inspection is unlikely

to exonerate the defendant. It is more likely that the manufacturer and

the third party will be held jointly and severally liable.4 A failure by

the plaintiff to inspect the product suggests contributory negligence,

which was a complete defence when Donoghue was decided. Now dam-

ages may be reduced on account of the plaintiff’s fault but the defend-

ant will not be exonerated from all liability.

The duty of care currently extends beyond the manufacturers

of products. It rests on the makers of component parts, assemblers,

installers, repairers, and building contractors. Liability is restricted to

those who may foreseeably be injured by the defective product but it is

diff‌icult to imagine a situation where a consumer, a user, or even a non-

user of a defective product who is injured by it would not satisfy that

4 But see Viridian Inc v Dresse r Canada Inc, [2002] AJ No 937 (CA), where it was

held that a defenda nt supplier of a component part was not under a duty of c are

to the plaint iff purchaser of a product manu factured by a third par ty. An inter-

mediate exa mination of the component part by t he third party wa s anticipated

and it would have reveale d the defect. The defendant did not, however, know

the use to which t he component would be put, and it needed furt her engineer-

ing by the thi rd party before it could be used .