Documentation:Torts/Negligence Services

From UBC Wiki
TORT LAW
CASEBOOK
Introduction
Dignitary Torts
Defamation • Discrimination • Harassment • Intentional infliction of mental suffering • Invasion of privacy • Trespass to the person
Property Torts
Interference with goods • Interference with land • Non-natural use of land • Private nuisance • Public nuisance
Negligence Tort
Duty of care • Breach of duty • Damage • Causation • Remoteness
Negligence Categories
Employment • Environmental pollution • Harmful products • Hosting patrons and guests • Infliction of mental injury • Misrepresentation • Occupation of premises • Professional services • Public authorities • Pure economic loss • Relational economic loss • Rescuers • Shoddy goods or structures • Treatment of indigenous children • Unborn children
Dishonesty & Abuse of Position Torts
Abuse of process • Breach of confidence • Conspiracy • Fraud • Inducing breach of contract • Injurious falsehood • Intimidation • Malicious prosecution • Misfeasance in public office • Passing off • Spoliation • Unlawful interference with economic interests
Strict Liability
Keeping dangerous animals • Non-natural use of land • Ultrahazardous activities • Vicarious liability
Defences
Apportionment of liability • Consent • Defamation defences • Defence of property • Denials • Excuses • Illegality • Legal authority • Limitation • Necessity • Self-defence
Remedies
Apologies • Damages • Injunctions • Insurance • Legal costs • Mitigation • Proprietary
Tort Law & Legal Systems
Charter values • Class actions • Concurrent actions • Constitutional torts • Indigenous dispute resolution • No-fault compensation schemes
Tort Theory
Instrumental theories • Constructive theories • Critical theories • Reflexive theories
Study Resources
1L strategy • Answer exercises • Quizzes • Beswick's course site • Opening Up Tort Law Project
Index
80x15.png

Negligent performance of professional services
Professional negligence refers to a person's failure to fulfill their professional duties to their clients in a way that meets the requisite standard of care. In contrast to regular negligence claims, professionals are held to a standard of care that reflects that of a reasonable person with their specialized training and knowledge. Common examples include lawyers, accountants, engineers, and health care practitioners.[1]

Lawyers

Legal malpractice
Lawyers from the Heels in the Courtroom podcast discuss issues that may arise from legal malpractice lawsuits.[2]

Duty of care

Duty to clients

Solicitors owe a duty of care in advising clients and representing their interests. A solicitor-client relationship is usually confirmed by a retainer agreement, but in some cases it can arise even from a brief encounter.[3]

Duty to third parties

There is case law demonstrating that lawyers and non-clients can share a sufficiently proximate relationship to give rise to a duty of care. In Canon v. Funds for Canada Foundation, the Ontario Superior Court affirmed the existence of a category of negligence in which a duty of care is owed by a solicitor to third parties who are not formal clients but nonetheless rely on the solicitor to protect their interests.[4] Cases that fall into this category include solicitor negligence that results in a "disappointed beneficiary", that is, a person who loses out on the benefits of a will due to the lawyer's negligence.[4] It makes sense to recognize a duty in such a scenario for several reasons:

Firstly, if no such duty is imposed the only persons with a valid claim, the testator and his estate, have suffered no loss, and the only person who has suffered a loss, a disappointed beneficiary, has no claim. This indicates a lacuna in the law which needs to be filled.

Secondly, there exists a need to recognize the importance of the rights of persons to leave their property to whom they please and a need to rectify mistakes which frustrate those rights.

Thirdly, there is no injustice in making a lawyer whose negligence has defeated his client’s testamentary intentions liable to pay damages, even if the damages are payable direct to the disappointed beneficiary rather than to his client’s estate for the purpose of distribution to the disappointed beneficiary.

Finally, the public relies on lawyers to prepare effective Wills. To deny an effective remedy amounts to a refusal to acknowledge a lawyer’s professional role in the community.[5]

Standard of care

Solicitors must meet the standard of a "reasonably competent and diligent solicitor".[6] This standard is not one of perfection. Liability will be imposed where the solicitor "fails to take some routine step which any solicitor would realize is necessary."[6]

The same standard of care applies to lawyers who refer their clients to other professionals and advisors. Although a lawyer does not guarantee the services provided by these third parties, they have a duty to make their referrals in a competent, prudent, and diligent manner.[7] They should be confident that those to whom they are referring their clients are competent.

Lawyers are also expected avoid conflicts of interest with their clients.[8] The duty to avoid conflicting interests is closely tied to the duty of commitment to the client's cause. The Supreme Court of Canada has noted that these two duties together ensure “that a divided loyalty does not cause the lawyer to ‘soft peddle’ his or her [representation] of a client out of concern for another client”.[9]

Causation

A lawyer's negligence may be a factual and legal cause of a plaintiff's loss even when there are other undeniable causes. In Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, the plaintiffs sued their lawyer for negligently referring them to a financial advisor who then fraudulently misappropriated their investments. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that while the fraud was a cause of the plaintiffs' injury,[10] the plaintiffs would not have made or continued with their investments had it not been for the lawyer's negligent advising and his repeated endorsements of the financial advisor, with whom he had a close friendship.[11] Given the inherent nature of a client-lawyer relationship, "the credibility that lawyers generally enjoy with their clients is a factor to bear in mind when assessing the impact of the advice they provide".[12]

The Court also found that the third party's fraud did not the break the chain of causation between the lawyer's negligence and the damage sustained by the plaintiffs. The lawyer's behaviour had exposed the plaintiffs to potential fraud, initiating the chain of events resulting in the loss. Wrongdoing by a third party could not shield the lawyer from liability.[13]

Financial advisors

Duty of care

The financial advisor-client relationship may give rise to a duty of care.[14] The relationship exists on a spectrum, ranging from a relationship of full trust and advice to one where the advisor merely acts in the capacity of an order-taker.[14][15] Each relationship should be assessed in isolation, based on the facts of the case.[16][17]

A variety of European bills and coins scattered over one another.

Standard of care

Most cases on the financial advisor/client relationship spectrum fall somewhere in the middle and require that the financial advisor meets the a standard of care of a reasonably prudent financial advisor.[14][18] When a financial advisor accepts advisory responsibilities requiring the exercise of skill and care, they must take reasonable steps to ensure that clients are aware of their options and the benefits and risks associated with those options.[19] Fundamental to the duty owed by a financial advisor to their client is the "Know your Client" rule, which means that the advisor should see that the investments made for the client are in line with the client's investment objectives and risk tolerances.[20]

However, the financial advisor is not an insurer and will not be held liable for every poor outcome. It is only expected that they reasonably apply the skill and care appropriate to the task they have undertaken and to the circumstances of the case.[19] For example, the advisor may be expected to apply greater care in advising clients who lack experience in investment matters.[21]

Causation

In assessing causation, a court will determine whether the financial advisor's negligent advising is a factual and legal cause of the plaintiff's injury. In Hignell v. Leeb, the financial advisor advised his client to invest her retirement savings into a single, unproven privately held company.[22] The client did so and lost the money in its entirety. The Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan found that the advisor was aware of his client's low risk tolerance and that there was "virtually no chance" the client would have made such an investment if the advisor had not advised her negligently.[23] The Court also found that the fraud committed by the private company in which the client invested could not displace the causal link between the financial advisor's negligence and the plaintiff's losses.[22]

Auditors

Duty of care

Auditors generally owe their corporate clients a duty of care in the performance of their statutory audits, though the duty does not extend to indeterminate third parties like shareholders.[24] Further, "[t]he mere fact that proximity has been recognized as existing between an auditor and its client for one purpose is insufficient to conclude that proximity exists between the same parties for all purposes."[25]

In cases of pure economic loss arising from representations and services undertaken by an auditor for other purposes, it may be necessary to conduct a novel duty of care analysis using a modified Anns/Coopers test.[26] The modified version of the test still calls for the establishment of proximity and foreseeability, but the legal analysis of these elements follows a set of tailored principles.

Establishing proximity requires an undertaking from the auditor and reliance from the client.[27] Where the auditor undertakes to provide a representation or service in circumstances that invite the client's reasonable reliance, the auditor becomes obligated to take reasonable care. The client has a right to rely on the auditor's undertaking for the purpose for which the auditor undertook to act.[26]

To prove reasonable foreseeability, "the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiff would rely on his or her representation; and ... such reliance would, in the particular circumstances of the case, be reasonable."[28]

If proximity and foreseeability are proven, a prima facie duty of care is established. The second stage of the Anns/Cooper test addresses residual policy concerns that could potentially negate that duty.[29]

Standard of care

It is expected that auditors must "exercise the skill, care and caution of a reasonably competent, careful and cautious auditor in the circumstances of the particular case".[30] The standard of care may be helpfully informed by the standards of the auditing profession as outlined in the Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and the Canadian Auditing Standards.[31] Examples of such standards include the obligation to be reasonably assured that the financial statements do not contain material inaccuracies, as well the obligation to “obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence” to support the audit.[31]

Causation

SAAMCO principle

UK developments in auditor negligence
In this episode of 4 New Square Chambers: In Brief, the hosts highlight several key English cases on auditor negligence and recent developments of the SAAMCO principle.[32]

Courts in the United Kingdom have adopted the "SAAMCO" principle of causation to limit recovery in cases of pure economic loss, initially elucidated in South Australia Asset Management Corpn v. York Montague Ltd.[33] The principle "denies recovery for pure economic loss where the plaintiff’s injury would still have occurred even if the defendant’s negligent misrepresentation were factually true."[34]

Application of the principle first involves defining the scope of the defendant's duty in respect of the purpose for which the representation was made.[35] A court may then apply the SAAMCO-style counterfactual analysis to identify the extent of the loss falling within the scope of the defendant’s duty.[36] The counterfactual asks whether the plaintiff's actions would have resulted in the same loss if the advice they received had been correct, keeping in mind the purpose of the duty assumed by the defendant.[36] This line of analysis means that loss resulting from the defendant's negligence in providing some piece of incorrect information is recoverable while loss resulting from entering into the transaction at all is not.[36]

Former Chief Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the SAAMCO principle in Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., but the majority considered it might conflict with Canadian jurisprudence on causation.[37] Even so, the majority did not completely rule out the possibility that the principle might apply in the future, stating that "a full consideration of SAAMCO’s application in Canadian law by this Court should await future cases".[38]

Medical practitioners

Duty of care

A doctor's duty to a patient comes about when the doctor-patient relationship has formed.[39] The scope of the duty is to "exercise due care in everything that the doctor does for the patient", which encapsulates multiple stages of care including attendance, diagnosis, referral, treatment and instruction.[39] In cases where negligence is alleged for more than one of these stages, each should be analyzed separately.[39]

Standard of care

In Canada, the standard of care expected of medical practitioners is that of a "reasonably prudent doctor."[40] The standard is objective and accounts for medical training.[40]

Every medical practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. He is bound to exercise that degree of care and skill which could reasonable be expected of a normal, prudent practitioner of the same experience and standing and if he holds himself out as a specialist, a higher degree of skill is required of him than of one who does not profess to be so qualified by special training and ability.[41]

A medical specialist, such as a surgeon, is held to a higher standard of care than the average doctor,[42] and their conduct should be assessed according to the conduct of other ordinary specialists in their field.[43] Still, a standard of reasonableness does not require perfection.[44]

Complication or negligence?
In this episode of The Checkup, the podcast hosts explain where the line is drawn between medical negligence and a blameless complication.[45]

English courts generally assess breach using the Bolam test, established in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee.[46] According to this test, a doctor will not be found negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical practitioners skilled in that particular area.[47] Additionally, a doctor will not be found negligent merely because another body of professionals would disagree with that practice.[48]

Informed consent

When it comes to cases surrounding informed consent, some jurisdictions employ a differently formulated standard of care. In the United Kingdom, the appropriate test in such cases is not the Bolam test but whether the doctor disclosed all material risks and reasonable alternative treatments.[49] Material risks are those to which "a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance".[49] Similarly, Canadian health professionals should disclose any material or unusual risks associated with an operation, as well as any alternative procedures.[50] In contrast, India still accepts the Bolam test as the proper test to use for matters concerning informed consent.[51]

Causation

To prove factual causation, a plaintiff must generally meet the "but for" test. This requires demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that if it were not for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred.[52]

Plaintiffs may find difficulty in proving factual causation in some medical negligence cases. In Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, the plaintiff's husband visited Kensington Hospital with complaints of vomiting.[53] The doctor sent him home without investigating, and he died shortly after.[54] The High Court of Justice found that while the doctor's conduct fell below the standard of care,[55] it was not clear that his negligence was the cause of death.[56] Even if the doctor had not acted negligently, it was likely that the plaintiff still would have died because he would not have been able to receive the necessary treatment in time.[56]

In the news
Widow sued physicians for negligence after losing husband to flesh-eating disease
A woman filed a lawsuit against four physicians and Northern Health, alleging negligence after her late husband died from flesh-eating disease. The disease had gone undiagnosed despite three trips to the emergency room.[57]

Informed consent

In Powell v. University Hospitals Sussex, the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for knee surgery. She developed a severe infection following her surgical procedures, which resulted in her needing a leg amputation.[58] The amputation had devastating impacts on her quality of life, and she sued for negligence, claiming that she had not been properly advised about the surgical risks and alternative treatment options.[58] However, the High Court of Justice was of the view that the claim "fail[ed] for lack of causal connection"[59] because the plaintiff probably would not have chosen another course of treatment even if the doctor had presented her with alternatives.[60]

Courts in Canada have employed a tailored two-part, modified objective test to determine whether causation has been established in informed consent claims. The plaintiff must prove (1) a material, special, or unusual risk was not disclosed to her in advance of the surgery; and (2) neither the plaintiff nor a reasonable person in her position would have agreed to the surgery if she had been sufficiently advised of such risk.[61][62] The courts consider what a reasonable person in the plaintiff's shoes would have done to ensure that their decision on causation is not tainted by a plaintiff's "hindsight reasoning."[63]

SAAMCO principle

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom applied the SAAMCO principle to limit liability in Khan v. Meadows. The plaintiff consulted a general practitioner about the results of her blood tests, wishing to determine whether she was a carrier for the haemophilia gene so that she could avoid having a child with haemophilia.[64] The doctor told her the blood test results were normal. The plaintiff subsequently gave birth to a child who was diagnosed with hameophilia and autism.[65] She sued for all costs associated with her son's disabilities.[66] The Court determined that she was able to recover for costs related to the her child having haemophilia but not autism, as the two conditions were unrelated and the scope of the doctor's duty was limited to providing advice about the haemophilia gene.[67] In applying the SAAMCO counterfactual and asking what the outcome would have been if the doctor's advice had been correct, the Court found that the plaintiff's child would still have been born with autism.[68]

Discussion questions

  • What is the rationale for extending a solicitor’s duty of care to third party beneficiaries of a proposed will? What are the potential risks of recognising such a duty of care to third parties?
  • Why should lawyers (as well as doctors, police officers and other professionals) be held to the standards of their profession, rather than simply to the standard of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person?
  • In Powell v. University Hospitals Sussex, the plaintiff’s negligence claim failed for lack of causation. Does this case illustrate the merits of no-fault compensation schemes (§12.1) over the tort system?
  • How does the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s application of the SAAMCO counterfactual relate to or differ from traditional “but for” causation reasoning?
  • How can a judge or jury—who are not medical experts—assess what standard of care a reasonable medical practitioner ought to take in the context of a complex medical procedure?
  • Whereas McLachlin C.J. would have applied the SAAMCO principle to limit the scope of liability in Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., a majority of the Court queried whether the principle “conflicts with Canadian jurisprudence” (para 95).[37] Should Canadian common law recognise the SAAMCO principle of causation?


  1. ↑ Campbells LLP (9 August 2023). "A Primer on Professional Negligence". Campbells LLP.
  2. ↑ Heels in the Courtroom (2 February 2022). "EP416 – Legal Malpractice". Legal Talk Network.
  3. ↑ Eskicioğlu, Özlem; LAW, ÖZ (2014). "Three's A Crowd: Third-party Reliance and the Duty of Care – The Latest Viewpoint from the Divisional Court in Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation". 20th East Region Solicitors Conference 1B: 2.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation, 2012 ONSC 399 at para 530.
  5. ↑ Wilhelm v. Hickson, 2000 SKCA 1 at paras 32-35.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Central & Eastern Trust Co. v. Rafuse, 1982 CanLII 2965 (NSSC) at para 7.
  7. ↑ Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14 (§19.4.1.2) at para 45.
  8. ↑ Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14 (§19.4.1.2) at para 71.
  9. ↑ Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39 at para 43 citing R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70 at para 19.
  10. ↑ Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14 (§19.4.1.2) at para 83.
  11. ↑ Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14 (§19.4.1.2) at paras 87–89.
  12. ↑ Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14 (§19.4.1.2) at para 87.
  13. ↑ Salomon v. Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14 (§19.4.1.2) at para 92.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Andersen v. Canadian Western Trust Company, 2019 ABQB 413 at para 38.
  15. ↑ Kent et al. v. May et al., 2001 CanLII 61006 (ABKB) at para 33.
  16. ↑ Robinson v. Fundex Investments Inc., 2006 CanLII 24459 (ONSC) at para 114.
  17. ↑ Chesebrough v. Willson, 2002 CanLII 7499 (ONCA) at para 2.
  18. ↑ Hignell v. Leeb, 2018 SKQB 330 at para 159.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Rhoads v. Prudential-Bache Securities Canada Ltd., 1992 CanLII 658 (BCCA).
  20. ↑ Robinson v. Fundex Investments Inc., 2006 CanLII 24459 (ONSC) at para 114.
  21. ↑ Cunningham v. Wiltzen, 2017 ABCA 185 at para 25.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Hignell v. Leeb, 2018 SKQB 330 at para 200.
  23. ↑ Hignell v. Leeb, 2018 SKQB 330 at para 200.
  24. ↑ Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 1997 CanLII 345 (SCC).
  25. ↑ Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at para 52.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at paras 30, 35.
  27. ↑ Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at para 30.
  28. ↑ Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at para 35.
  29. ↑ Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at para 37.
  30. ↑ Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA v. Stout & Company LLP, 2017 ABQB 637 at para 49.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA v. Stout & Company LLP, 2017 ABQB 637 at paras 50–51.
  32. ↑ 4 New Square Chambers: In Brief (2 July 2019). "The numbers game – hot topics in civil claims against accountants and auditors". Apple Podcasts.
  33. ↑ South Australia Asset Management Corp v. York Montague Ltd, [1996] UKHL 10 (BAILII).
  34. ↑ Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at para 90.
  35. ↑ Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton UK LLP, [2021] UKSC 20 (§19.4.2.1) at para 13.
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton UK LLP, [2021] UKSC 20 (§19.4.2.1) at para 23.
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at para 95.
  38. ↑ Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63 (§19.3.1.3) at para 94.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 Thibert v. Zaw-Tun, 2006 ABQB 423 at para 92.
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Adair Estate v. Hamilton Health Sciences Corp., 2005 CanLII 18846 (ONSC) at para 128.
  41. ↑ Adair Estate v. Hamilton Health Sciences Corp., 2005 CanLII 18846 (ONSC) at para 128 citing Sylvester v. Crits et al., 1956 CanLII 34 (ONCA).
  42. ↑ Adair Estate v. Hamilton Health Sciences Corp., 2005 CanLII 18846 (ONSC) at para 132.
  43. ↑ Ter Neuzen v. Korn, 1995 CanLII 72 (SCC) at para 46.
  44. ↑ Thompson v. Handler, 2023 ONSC 5042 at para 127.
  45. ↑ The Checkup (14 February 2019). "Episode 2: A complication or medical negligence... when are doctors liable to their patients?". Apple Podcasts.
  46. ↑ Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR 582.
  47. ↑ Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR 582 at 587.
  48. ↑ Powell v. University Hospitals Sussex [2023] EWHC 736 (KB) at paras 19-22.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board, [2015] UKSC 11 at para 87.
  50. ↑ Kern v. Forest, 2010 BCSC 938 at para 69.
  51. ↑ Kohli v. Manchanda, [2008] INSC 42 (§18.1.1) at para 31.
  52. ↑ Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 (§16.1.2) at para 8.
  53. ↑ Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, [1969] 1 QB 428 at 430–431.
  54. ↑ Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, [1969] 1 QB 428 at 431.
  55. ↑ Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, [1969] 1 QB 428 at 437–438.
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, [1969] 1 QB 428 at 438–439.
  57. ↑ Schmunk, Rhianna (28 February 2022). "Josh Wakely died of flesh-eating disease. Doctors misdiagnosed his condition 3 times, his widow claims". CBC News.
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 Powell v. University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, [2023] EWHC 736 (KB) (§19.4.3.1) at para 3.
  59. ↑ Powell v. University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, [2023] EWHC 736 (KB) (§19.4.3.1) at para 89.
  60. ↑ Powell v. University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, [2023] EWHC 736 (KB) (§19.4.3.1) at paras 86–89.
  61. ↑ Warlow v. Sadeghi, 2021 BCCA 46 at paras 33-35.
  62. ↑ Arndt v. Smith, 1997 CanLII 360 (SCC) (§19.10.2.1) at para 6.
  63. ↑ Bollman v. Soenen, 2014 ONCA 36 at para 22.
  64. ↑ Khan v. Meadows, [2021] UKSC 21 (§19.4.3.2) at para 3.
  65. ↑ Khan v. Meadows, [2021] UKSC 21 (§19.4.3.2) at paras 4–5, 8.
  66. ↑ Khan v. Meadows, [2021] UKSC 21 (§19.4.3.2) at para 13.
  67. ↑ Khan v. Meadows, [2021] UKSC 21 (§19.4.3.2) at paras 67–68.
  68. ↑ Khan v. Meadows, [2021] UKSC 21 (§19.4.3.2) at para 68.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Torts/Negligence_Services&oldid=858970"