In Maguire v Padt, 2014 ONSC 6099 (S.C.J.), the
defendant, Suzanne Padt, was
driving in whiteout conditions when she lost control of her car and
rolled into a ditch. Several passing motorists pulled over to rescue Padt from
her car. After placing Padt safely in a police cruiser, the rescuers were
preparing to return to their vehicles when another passing car lost control and
drove into them. Two of the rescuers were killed and a third was
seriously injured. They commenced an action against Padt.
Padt brought a motion
for summary judgment, arguing that the duty of care that she owed to her
rescuers concluded at the end of the rescue and that the rescue had concluded
when she was removed from imminent peril and was safe in the police car.
In its decision, the court first reviewed and affirmed the
established legal principle that negligent parties who cause themselves or
others to be placed in danger owe a duty of care to the responding rescuers.
The court stated that the rationale
underlying this duty was that injury to rescuers was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the negligent conduct that led to their involvement. The court
stated that the negligent party should be liable for any injury that was a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligent conduct – not just for
injuries that occurred while the person being rescued was in peril. The court
put it this way: “It is
foreseeability, not the end of the peril, that sets the limits of the liability.”
Given the whiteout conditions on
the road, the court found that the second accident was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of Padt’s negligent conduct. The court dismissed Padt’s motion and,
under the assumption that Padt was negligent in causing the first accident (which was accepted for the purpose of the motion),
granted partial summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.
No comments:
Post a Comment