Instruction
Ramsden v. Peterborough (City) [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1094, 106 D.L.R. (4th) 233 (SCC)
This is a classic case dealing with freedom of expression. The City of Peterborough had passed a bylaw prohibiting the posting of any material on city property. The bylaw prohibited the posting of “any bill, poster or other advertisement of any nature,” on any “tree . . . pole, post, stanchion or other object . . .” within the city limits. Ramsden put up advertising posters on several hydro poles to advertise an upcoming concert for his band. He was charged with committing an offence under the bylaw. It is not disputed that he posted the bills on the hydro pole.
Question:
Indicate what defences he might have to the charge and the arguments for both sides and likely outcome.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Paisley Snail
On the evening of 26 August 1928, Mrs. May Donoghue was dining out at the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley Renfrewshire Scotland. Mrs. Donoghue’s friend ordered a Scotsman ice cream float for May. The owner of the café brought the glass of ice cream and poured most of the bottle of ginger beer creating the float. After a while, Donoghue’s friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the glass and a decomposed snail came out as well.
Mrs. Donoghue claimed that as a result of the incident, she became ill and required emergency treatment on the 16th of September. She was eventually diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock.
Mrs. Donoghue sued the manufacturer that was listed on the bottle of ginger beer, David Stevenson. In her suit she claimed that:
1. Stevenson had a duty of care to Donoghue to ensure snails did not get into his bottles of ginger beer
2. he had breached this duty by failing to provide a system to clean the bottles
3. he knew that cleaning was important as the ginger beer would be consumed by people
4. he had left bottles in a location “to which it was obvious that snails had freedom of access”
5. the breach of duty resulted in Donoghue’s illness (Taylor)
Should Donoghue be successful in suing Stevenson? Why or why not?
In answering, consider all necessary elements of negligence.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Read Case Summary 3.7 Mosher v. Benson on page 85. This case is about a 17 year old who purchased a car from an adult. The 17 year old (Mosher) asked to have the transaction reversed on the basis that he was a minor at the time of the contract.
Answer the following questions:
1. This case is from the province of Nova Scotia. How would this case likely be resolved in a British Columbia court? Answer this question by describing the relevant law in British Columbia.
2. Do you believe that a car should be considered a necessity? Why or why not? Consider what the definition of a necessity is in your answer.