In order to prove that transporting the inmate Zane unrestrained was an act of negligence from the side of the correctional service it is important to establish the facts that:
- The inmate was dangerous in nature.
- The inmate has had history of violent crime in the past.
- He or she is considered to be a threat regarding injury and damage to property.
The case clearly shows that the correctional service considered the inmate as a low risk inmate and according to Commissioner’s directive 710-2 low risk inmates could be kept uncuffed during transfer which is why the warden authorised the transportation of the same inmate without cuffing him. Zane was brought in accused of clever fraud case and did not show any sign of violence till the day of the felony. The correctional home owed a duty of care towards the injured party in this case but it cannot be denied that they took all the measures to make sure nothing goes wrong. Since the inmate was considered low risk the warden took the responsibility of keeping the inmate unrestrained during the transportation. Inside the home he was not dangerous and did not have any past history of crimes but the natural instinct of an inmate is always to escape and this case the authority clearly did not take ample actions to safeguard the position of the common people as well as the staffs (Cornford, 2016).
It cannot be denied that due to the wrong assessment of the situation a common public has been hurt and injured by the inmate where the government stands to be directly responsible. This action of keeping Zane the inmate unrestrained could be established as an act of negligence only when it is established that the correctional service owed a duty of care towards the common people. In this case the Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79 could be quoted as it clearly showed that the registrar clearly had a duty of care towards the investor which is why the court clearly overturned the verdict given against the defendant (Wright, 2017). Similarly in this case it is clear that the keeping the inmate unrestrained under the understanding of the fact that Zane is low risk highlights the poor assessment of the situation. Besides as per the Federal Tort Claims Act enacted in 1946 the government doesn’t get inherent immunity in tort cases which could also be taken into account while the case is officiated (Ivensky, 2015).
Application to the facts of the case
- The correctional home hasn’t performed its duty with care or else the incident wouldn’t have happened.
- Even though the inmate was considered low risk he committed crime that involves harming others physically and escaping while transportation.
- Considering the fact that Zane escaped and there was a long term planning involved, it clearly shows that correctional home hasn’t been performing its duties with care right from the beginning which establishes the fact that correctional home’s decision of keeping the inmate unrestrained during the transportation for medical treatment to be negligent.
Can Helen sue the correctional home and Zane together for their negligent activities against her?
In order to establish the charges against Zane and the correctional home it is important for Helen to:
- Establish her injuries
- Show the negligent activities of the correctional home.
The case already shows that Helen Happy had been affected by the strength of the inmate. The case in hand clearly shows that the actions of Zane were intentional and hence as per the Canadian Tort law Zane could be held guilty. He hit her with the intention of inuring her and using her vehicle to flee. She was deeply injured and also her vehicle was damaged which clearly due to the negligence was showed by the staffs to keep him free. In this case it is important to mention that police or correctional homes have duty of care towards the society which has been in this case breached. In this case the act of physical harm done by Zane on Helen could be considered as battery as he did bring offensive physical contact with the intention of injuring her and taking away her property (Zillman, Simmons & Gregory, 2015). Pretty unlike the case Malette vs Shulman (1990) 67 DLR (4th) 321where the defendant acted in good faith to restore the life of the plaintiff but still the plaintiff sued the defendant for battery (Hodgson, 2016). In this case it was clear that Zane was intentional in his actions just to run away from imprisonment but the correctional home was equally responsible for the injury to Helen which in this case could be considered as vicarious liability. Hence, in this case the defendant is Zane and the Correctional Home. Negligence could also be showed where there is no duty of care. Duty of care is a bona fide requirement in correctional homes and other administrative offices. In this case there was number of instances where duty was breached and for that damages have been done. In tort law duty is considered one of the important elements (Collins & McLeod-Kilmurray, 2014). Queen v. Cognos Inc.,  1 S.C.R. 87 shows that duty and breach of duty could be one of the key issues. In the above case the representative was held guilty of misrepresenting certain information. Hence, it is clear that breaching the responsibilities and duties could be harmful not only for the staffs but also for the common public (Conway, 2014).
Implementing facts to the case
- The charge or battery or physical assault is absolutely right against Zane as he wanted to inflict physical injuries and was eventually successful.
- The one man from the staffs who transported letters from Zane clearly breached the duty should be held for negligent actions.
- Hence, it could be said that Helen could sue Zane and Correctional home for the damages incurred.
The defendants in this case would be the correctional home and Zane and on the other hand the plaintiff would be affected people like Helen and Melvin who suffered physical injury and damage to property.
Is Maggie responsible for the damage done to Fran?
In order to determine the responsibility of Maggie in the damages done to Fran and her property one needs to consider:
- Whether the injuries and damage done to the property was due to Maggie and her chickens.
- If Maggie turned blind eye to the fact that Fran’s property was intruded and accordingly damaged by the chickens possessed by Maggie and
- To establish the fact that Maggie did not take proper steps to prevent her chickens to get into Fran’s property.
- Finally whether Maggie was negligent of her duties or not.
The Negligence tort law is defined as the tort committed by a person where one has failed to act reasonably when he or she owes a duty as described in the law. Negligence is not deliberate but lack of social sense leads to an issue that could affect another human being. It is a social and legal obligation that one should properly perform (Stark, 2016). All negligent activities focus on the issue of standard of care which clearly is one major point in this case too. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 is one of the benchmark cases where standard of care and negligence has been clearly shown (Steel, 2015). In this case the bottling company was sued by a customer who fell ill after drinking beer from an opaque bottle that contained carcass of snail. This case discussed standard of care which was clearly breached as the bottle company had the responsibility of providing proper product to the consumer. Pretty similarly it was the responsibility of Maggie to make sure her chickens did not intrude other’s property which might cause significant damage and annoyance. The case of Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board showed that standard of care is important (Okrent, 2014).
Negligence in this case was highlighted through improper management of property by Maggie that led to the physical injury of Fran and damage to her property due to putrid contents flowing across Fran’s property. There are aspects like foreseeability, reasonability and duty of care which was ignored in this case. Nuisance is another issue that comes up while discussing this issue. The Occupier’s Liability Act 1990 discussed the liability or the duty of care that the occupier has to bear while using the property (Oliphant & Nolan, 2017). A person living in a society has the duty of being reasonable and stays happily with the neighbor without creating nuisance which was breached in this case through the act of chickens which caused the physical damage to Fran and her property. Wilde v. The Cambie Malone Corporation 2008 BCSC 704 is an important case which discusses occupier’s liability to keep the property in a standard condition that doesn’t affect others while passing through the property (Oberdiek, 2014).
Application of the facts to the case
- Maggie showed negligent behavior and lack of standard of care towards its neighbor as per the negligence tort law Canada.
- She also failed to perform her obligations as per the occupier’s liability Act 1990 when she failed to clean the weed and the bush that led Fran to break her ankle.
- Maggie’s negligence also showed up when she failed to manage her chickens from getting into Fran’s property and creating nuisance which establishes the fact that Maggie was negligent and could be sued on negligence of tort.
Collins, L., & McLeod-Kilmurray, H. (2014). The Canadian law of toxic torts. Canada
Conway, M. (2014). A New Duty of Care-Tort Liability from Voluntary Human Rights
Due Diligence in Global Supply Chains. Queen's LJ, 40, 741.
Cornford, T. (2016). Towards a public law of tort. Routledge.
Hodgson, D. (2016). The law of intervening causation. Routledge.
Ivensky, V. (2015). Statutory Duty of Safety Care to Subcontractors: US, Canadian &
UK Perspectives. Professional Safety, 60(07), 38-45.
Oberdiek, J. (Ed.). (2014). Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts. Oxford University Press.
Okrent, C. (2014). Torts and personal injury law. Nelson Education.
Oliphant, K., & Nolan, D. (2017). Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press.
Stark, F. (2016). Culpable carelessness: Recklessness and negligence in the criminal law. Cambridge University Press.
Steel, S. (2015). Proof of causation in tort law (Vol. 120). Cambridge University Press.
Wright, J. (2017). Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Zillman, D. N., Simmons, J. H., & Gregory, D. D. (2015). Maine Tort Law. LexisNexis.