Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping people with civil disputes in the areas of Employment, WSIB, Small Claims, Landlord and Tenant, and other tribunal matters with the compensation amount of $25,000 or less. Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.
Scenario:
The incident happened on January 26, 2013 in the North York Area. The defendant resided in a townhouse, and placed two quilts together into a dryer that was then found lighted on fire. He immediately attempted to cease fire with water but no success. The defendant's family all escaped and dialed 911. The fire caused damage on the defendant's property as well as his neighbor's house. The neighbor submitted a Negligence claim to the Small Claims Court for compensation, but the case was dismissed on insufficient evidence. Then, the neighbor filed an appeal in the same matter but still got rejected. The defendant explained that he had been doing this with his 4-year dryer in the past prior to this case, and nothing bad happened.
Expert Reports
This case also hired three experts to investigate the root cause of fire which resulted in a severe damage in this matter. The experts are required to determine whether the fire is caused by these assumptions; (i) whether it is triggered by malfunction of the dryer itself; or (ii) whether it is resulted from a heavy load in the dryer.
These reports concluded that they cannot prove that there is a direct connection between the root cause of fire and a heavy load (which are two quilts in this case) in the dryer.
My comment on this Negligence case
In terms of submitting a Negligence case, it is very important to establish that there is a causation between the Wrongful Conduct by the defendant and Harm to the plaintiff. The defendant was properly using the dryer (even though it is considered as overload in this case). This causation cannot be established by three expert reports in this case. Therefore, this case was dismissed on insufficient evidence. Unless the defendant was using the dryer improperly (not used for drying clothes, garments, or equivalent), like explosive material or such, the case will then be considered as intentional tort, that only real harm has to be proven in the circumstance.
This news was published with my comments on March 7, 2015 in Mingpao, which is one of the most circulating newspaper in the community:
http://www.mingpaocanada.com/tor/htm/News/20150307/tag1.htm?m=0
Details can also be referred to my article of "What Negligence is all about?" published on March 7, 2015 in my company blog.
Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for information only in this entire website. Please contact Trustworthy Legal Service for your independent legal advice in your particular situation. The first consultation is also required prior to my retainer of your case.
Follow on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn!
Like or/and share this post if you find it useful!
Scenario:
The incident happened on January 26, 2013 in the North York Area. The defendant resided in a townhouse, and placed two quilts together into a dryer that was then found lighted on fire. He immediately attempted to cease fire with water but no success. The defendant's family all escaped and dialed 911. The fire caused damage on the defendant's property as well as his neighbor's house. The neighbor submitted a Negligence claim to the Small Claims Court for compensation, but the case was dismissed on insufficient evidence. Then, the neighbor filed an appeal in the same matter but still got rejected. The defendant explained that he had been doing this with his 4-year dryer in the past prior to this case, and nothing bad happened.
Expert Reports
This case also hired three experts to investigate the root cause of fire which resulted in a severe damage in this matter. The experts are required to determine whether the fire is caused by these assumptions; (i) whether it is triggered by malfunction of the dryer itself; or (ii) whether it is resulted from a heavy load in the dryer.
These reports concluded that they cannot prove that there is a direct connection between the root cause of fire and a heavy load (which are two quilts in this case) in the dryer.
My comment on this Negligence case
In terms of submitting a Negligence case, it is very important to establish that there is a causation between the Wrongful Conduct by the defendant and Harm to the plaintiff. The defendant was properly using the dryer (even though it is considered as overload in this case). This causation cannot be established by three expert reports in this case. Therefore, this case was dismissed on insufficient evidence. Unless the defendant was using the dryer improperly (not used for drying clothes, garments, or equivalent), like explosive material or such, the case will then be considered as intentional tort, that only real harm has to be proven in the circumstance.
This news was published with my comments on March 7, 2015 in Mingpao, which is one of the most circulating newspaper in the community:
http://www.mingpaocanada.com/tor/htm/News/20150307/tag1.htm?m=0
Details can also be referred to my article of "What Negligence is all about?" published on March 7, 2015 in my company blog.
Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for information only in this entire website. Please contact Trustworthy Legal Service for your independent legal advice in your particular situation. The first consultation is also required prior to my retainer of your case.
Follow on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn!
Like or/and share this post if you find it useful!
RSS Feed
