Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation. Answer: Purpose: The main purpose of this case study is to determine whether the defendant of this case has failed to perform his statutory duty of care to the plaintiff or not. Facts: Considering the case brief, following facts are being conceptualised: The Plaintiffs are Diane Goody and Richard Goody and the Defendant is Costco Wholesale Corporation Limited. One of the Plaintiffs, Diane Goody is married to the other Plaintiff Richard Goody. Goody fell as she entered the Costco store located at the Ontario, London. Goody is retired property assessor and was 53 years of age at the date of incident. During the accident Goody was accompanied by Mr. Goody. It was snowing and she was with her winter boots, winter glasses and her hand was empty at the time of accident. Her Husband was behind her when she fell forward and she was able to get up and was seated. The incident report was completed by the Costco employee and it was signed and dated by Mrs. Goody. Goody was examined at the Headwaters Health Centrein Orangeville. Goody consulted with numbered of physicians and health care workers regarding her condition. She also submitted to a Defence medical examination. The Defendant (Costco) states that there were no hazards in the grate at the entrance of the Costco store which caused the Plaintiff to trip and submits that they took reasonable care in the situation. The Defendant (Costco) denies negligence and submits that the mere fact of this case is any incident does not give rise to liability of the defendant or the Plaintiffs entitlement to damages. The Defendant (Costco) further submits that the plaintiffs should have to take proper care as the weather was adverse in nature. Goody alleges for non-pecuniary or general damages, special damages, and pre- judgement interest as a result of the fall she sustained on Sunday, January 26, 2003 at the premises of the defendant. Issues: The main issues of the case are as follows: Whether the obligation of Costco to its customers on issue of liability has been fulfilled or not. Whether the Costco has breached the statutory duty of care which were sufficient to discharge the burden placed on by the Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 in the circumstances of this case. Did the Defendant failed to make the entrance reasonably safe and met the standard of care which is placed on Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (QC, 2014). Whether the Plaintiff is eligible for non-pecuniary damages or any monetary damages in this case or not. Did the Plaintiff fits the crumbling skull principle? Relevant legal provisions: The Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 is the main statutory provision in this case. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to meet all the criteria necessary under section 3 of the Act. According to section 3 (1), it is the duty of the occupier to take sufficient care regarding its premises and should take necessary steps to secure the interest of the customers. The premises they hold must be reasonably safe and occupier has to take necessary action at all circumstances (van Zeben, 2015). According to section 3 (2), the duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on the premises. In Kerr v. Loblaws Inc., 2007 ONCA 371 ( CanLII), 224 O.A.C. 56, the Court of Justice has observed that the defendant must take all the possible steps to make the premises safe for the other persons or plaintiffs. The defendant can lightning the premises, guarding its boundaries or maintain the p roperty on overall base. The case of Crudo v. Westfair Foods Ltd., 2005 BCSC 320 (CanLII) determines the facts that the defendant was not liable for the accident since the defendant had met the requisite standard of care and the reasonable duty of care. However, in context to the injuries if the defendant was liable for the injuries then the court would have awarded the cost to the plaintiff. In Cox (Litigation Guardian of) v. Marchen,[2002] O.J. 3669 (S.C.), the court has observed that if in case of any maintenance failure the defendant had failed to notify the plaintiff and the plaintiff sustained injury by this, it will amount as breach of duty by the defendant. Further, in Wood vCobourgDistrict GeneralHospital,(1999), 1999 CanLII 8871 (ON CA), 25 O.A.C. 370, O.J. No. 3889, it has been held that the rate of compensation will be depended on the sufferings of the plaintiff. Decision/ analyze/ reasoning: The court has decided this case on the basis of precedents and the nature of the process is known as case-based reasoning particularly. In certain circumstances, the court is pronouncing judgments based on the previously decided facts and decrees. In the present case, an allegation regarding the statutory duty of the defendant has been made and compensation has been asked by the plaintiff. The defendants had defend their case too by taking the plea of contributory negligence and made certain counter claims in this respect. Court has taken the analogy of previously decided judgment of Kerr v. Loblaws Inc., Wood vCobourgDistrict GeneralHospital,(1999) and alike judgments. The nature of the reasoning is retrieve that has been adopted by the court. A close interpretation of the decision reveals that fact that the occupiers should be more careful while dealing with the customers and they are required to make all the precautions for secure the interest of the customers. If they failed to take reasonable steps in such cases, he will not take the plea for innocence. He has the burden to prove that there is no laxity regarding pro-activeness from his side. The decision of the case has proved this general fact. Ratio: A close interpretation of the Occupiers Liability Act reveals that if the provision of liability of the occupiers is reasonable, he has to compensate the plaintiff. This principle was established in Waldick et al. v. Malcolm (1991) 125 N.R. 372 (SCC) where the court has observed that the defendant had failed to show reasonable care to plaintiff and therefore held liable. In Crudo v. Westfair Foods Ltd., 2005 BCSC 320, it has been established that it is the duty of the occupier to make the premises safe. In case of any failure in this case, he will be liable. Disposition: However, the court has given certain judgments in this case and it has followed the rules and case citations relevant to this case. The learned court was pleased to make its judgment against the defendant and ordered the defendant to pay the following compensation to the plaintiff: General damage of $50,000 to the plaintiff; Damages for loss of past income of $50,736. Damages for loss of future income of $67,500. Damages for Family Law Act at the rate of $75,000. However, it has been stated by the court that the defendant can make issues if they are dissatisfied with the judgment within the time specified by the Court. Reference: QC, M. B. (2014).The Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation. Bloomsbury Publishing. van Zeben, J. (2015). Establishing a governmental duty of care for climate change mitigation: will Urgenda turn the tide?.Transnational Environmental Law,4(2), 339-357. Wilcox, V. (2016).A Company's right to Damages for Non-pecuniary Loss. Cambridge University Press.