Rusholme’s Lawsuit

Saunders and Watts committed an unintentional tort to the damaged properties by

choosing to close the windows which was against the instructions given by the Rusholme’s.
The damages caused to the properties was against the will of the workers as they were
protecting the reoccurrence of an event that had recently occurred at the expense of such
workers. It is important to understand that the relationship between the workers and the
employer was made through a mutual consent and trust in completing the tasks. Therefore, to
prove this factor in a court requires understanding the facets involved in the unintentional tort
was committed. The intentions of the workers should be weighted on the degree and intensity
towards causing harm to the family property and violating their job descriptions and the
requirements stated by the employer.
However, as a worker it is important to understand the relevance of observing
precaution within a working environment and ensuring that the safety measures are held with
utmost concerns. Even though, Saunders and Watts Ltd employees concentrated on avoiding
an occurrence of a theft event, it was logical to observe the necessary safety precautions that
aligned with their decision. According to the workers, the best action was to ensure that the
security of the property in the house was maintained and avoiding actions that could lead to
the exposure or alarming robbers. However, the workers did not invest in checking on the
precautions that would align with their decisions to ensure that the damage that occurred
would have been stopped. It would have been logical to inform the neighbor on what they
had chosen to do, irrespective of what had been previously addressed. The idea of avoiding
facilitating burglary would have been essential if all the necessary precautions would have
been followed.
However, the workers can be considered ignorant to handling precautions and
understanding the job description required by them. It is essential for the workers to
understand what actions could lead or cause what damages. Besides, it was written in the
caution section in the items that were being used in the carrying out the task in the compound.
Therefore, it was clear that the circulation of air and flammable objects needed to be kept
away or put off after the completion of the activity. Besides, Rusholme’s family had issued
instructions that the windows needed to be left open and the key given to the neighbor. Thus,
it was logical to abide to the instruction or considering otherwise and ensuring that the
different facets are followed. However, doing one act intentionally and failing to consider all
the necessary cautions that is needed, can cause accountability in case the property is
damaged.
The standard care needed by Rusholme’s was to leave the windows open for the
circulation of air in the house. It can be claimed that Rusholme’s understood the nature and
aftermath that would have been caused when negligence and ignorance is introduced to the
action of the workers. The standard of care as stated by the Rusholme’s was to leave the
windows open to protect the property from the damage. Also, it was the obligation of the
workers to inform the owners of the property of the necessary precautions that needed to be
taken in case an alternative approach was to be taken. The workers would have ensured that
the pilot light was turned off manually and the gas stove did not pose any harm to the
property of their employer. Therefore, even though the workers might have been aware of the
damages that are imposed due to the detailed warning in the caution section, they were not
detailed and careful in their judgment and decision-making on what they decided to
implement.
Consequently, it is important and relevant not to overlook on the efforts that was
being made by the workers towards promoting the security protection of the property. On the
other hand, it was illogical for the workers to leave the keys at the neighbor, as instructed,
without providing information on what had been done to the house, and the relevant
information necessary in preventing the damages. While the workers were certain about their
intentions of preventing burglary, it was also essential to consider that their work is not a
cause of damages to the property. Therefore, they had options on how to approach the
situation and prevent the damages incurred. For instance, it was the duty of the workers to
inform the neighbors on what had occurred in the house, and what was done in contrary to the
instructions of the employer. In case the workers decided to leave the windows and the
ventilation open, the neighbor would have been resourceful inclosing them and ensuring
ultimate security.
The unintentional tort was caused by the decision made by the workers hence; the
accountability of the damages incurred should be a result of their individualized decisions. It
is the duty of the worker to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the safety of the
working environment or the individuals within the premises. Besides, it was relevant for the
workers to inspect the house with reference to the cautions of the job description and how
efficient they can work with causing unnecessary damages.
Since all the equipment used in the refurbishing of the house contained precaution,
and considering that the workers are required to have a professional experience in their work,
arguable ignorance played a top most feature in the decisions of the worker. Thus,
considering the actions and the decisions of the workers, it is logical to argue that the workers
were to be accounted for their actions.
The approach given to the case is much more different as the one given to a normal
case in a court of law. It is important and relevant to the case that the Rusholme’s were aware
of the precautions that needed to be taken in order to avoid the incident that caused
destructions. However, it is important to consider the approach that was taken by Saunders
and Watts. The impression of negligence is the most likely approach that the case is likely to
take. The cause of the damage is as a result of the workers negligence in following the
instructions given by Rusholme’s. Even with the perceived approach of protecting theft from
occurring due to the recent experiences, the safety of the property should not be jeopardized,
while trying to address the possibilities of what if. Besides, there were numerous available
options that needed to be considered before arriving to the final decision.
After the above discussed factual aspects of the situation, we would discuss the legal
side of the given scenario and try to evaluate which party can be legally held responsible for
the damage to the property and what defenses can be taken by them and claims they can have.
The keys aspects of the case revolve around the concepts of vicarious liability, comparative
negligence and due diligence.
The case Rusholme have against the Saunders and Watts Ltd is a clear case of
negligence, while not taking due diligence and necessary care required in the scenario, as
they have not just ignored the warning on the can of sealer but they had also ignored the
instructions given by the Rusholme. As being the case of negligence, there are four elements
which need to be proved by the Rusholmes in the court in order to prove negligence in this
case.
The first element needs to be proved to establish the case against Saunders and Watts
Ltd is that the Saunders and Watts Ltd were duty bound to strictly follow the instructions
given by Rusholme and they must have acted in a reasonable and safe manner to avoid any
accidents. Apart from that, Saunders and Watts Ltd also had the responsibility to read the
warning labels and should have taken all the necessary precautionary measures as they were
supposed to know the materials they were using and working with as being expert in the
field.
 As it is mentioned in the given scenario that the workers left the home keys on the
kitchen table besides the stove, so they must have seen the stove and neglected the fact that
the stove pilot is burning and it can cause an accident in presence of the inflammable material
with windows and doors closed. It is also important to mention here that there were clear
instructions to keep the windows open for ventilation and then hand over the keys to the
neighbor instead of putting them inside the home. As the keys were put on the kitchen table
hence it is also clear that there must be a window or door which was unlocked and through
which the workers got out of the house after putting keys on kitchen table, hence ruling out
the workers’ stated precautionary measure to keep the thieves out by locking all the doors and
windows.
The second element that Rusholme need to prove in this case is that one or more of
the duties were breached by the Saunders and Watts Ltd In this particular scenario. It can be
proved with ease that not only the Saunders and Watts Ltd ignored their client’s clear
instructions, but they also failed to observe necessary due diligence and ignored the warnings
label on the sealer can used. By evaluating these facts it can be proved that the Saunders and
Watts Ltd workers neglected their duty and not worked with due diligence which was
required in this scenario. Hence they committed a tort by their sheer negligence.
Under the Canadian tort law, a person cannot be held liable for a tort for which they
are charged unless he owes that duty to the other party and that breach caused actual harm to
the other party or parties. So the relationship exist between the parties is actually based on the
proximity giving effect to performance of the duty of care. The breach can be tortious or from
the breach of a contract between the parties. In Canadian courts the amount of damages do
not depend on the nature of breach being tortious or contractual.
The third most important element that the Rusholme need to prove in the case is that,
these were the actions and negligence of Saunders and Watts Ltd that caused the mentioned
damage to the property of Rusholme.
This element can be proved by evaluating the facts that the Saunders and Watts Ltd
were instructed to keep the windows open for ventilation and then handover the keys to the
neighbor, so they could close the windows later and lock the house, but Saunders and Watts
Ltd ignored the instructions and also failed to take due diligence and their deliberate actions
caused the blast which ultimately damaged the property.
The concept of due diligence in Canadian torts law is that the person under the
circumstances take the necessary care, prudence and determination usually required and
necessary to avoid damage or harm to person or property. If a person does not perform due
diligence and there is an unreasonable harm or damage caused to any person or property due
to absence of that due diligence then that person/entity can be held liable for negligence and
causing harm. To prove negligence in a court of law, there are five elements that need
consideration to have a prima facie case. These necessary elements are:

1. A legal duty to perform reasonable care

2. Failure to exercise required reasonable care
3. Cause damage/harm by such negligent behaviour
4. Physical harm/damage caused
5. A proximate cause to show that the harm was within the scope of liability

The fourth and final element that needs to be proved to establish the case of
negligence against the Saunders and Watts Ltd is that there was any damage or harm. This is
a factual question that can be proved through evidence.
In many other countries the Plaintiff could have a case of strict liability against the
Standard Household Products Ltd, but as there is no tort of strict liability against the
manufacturers in Canada, so Rusholme have no claim against the Standard Household
Products Ltd. If there were a concept of strict liability against manufacturers then Plaintiff
could have a strong case against Standard Household Products Ltd. This liability can arise
from the product of the Standard Household Products Ltd itself and from their actions.
In that case the manufacturer can claim a defense that their product is not extremely
hazardous in its nature if it is used with proper precautions and under normal circumstance
but the negligence of the other defendant Saunders and Watts Ltd made it hazardous, hence
the manufacturers are not liable for the damage caused by the product under the law of strict
liability.
In Canada the manufacturer can be held liable for negligence, but as there was no
negligence on part of the Standard Household Products Ltd in this scenario, as they have
clearly mentioned warning on their product by stating the product being inflammable, hence
they cannot be held liable for negligence.
The defense that can be taken by the Saunders and Watts Ltd is that they are only
partially liable for the damage by taking shelter of the comparative negligence. By this
defense Saunders and Watts Ltd can try to shift their partial responsibility on Standard
Household Products Ltd, as it was their flammable product that directly caused the damage to
the property of the Rusholme. By taking this defense Saunders and Watts Ltd can save a lot
by transferring the major liability towards the product manufacturers. But there is less
likelihood that they can succeed in their defense under the Canadian law of torts.
Saunders and Watts Ltd could also assert the defense of comparative negligence
against the Rusholme, claiming therein that it were the Rusholme who kept them uninformed
about the open flame of stove pilot. They can claim that the knowledge about the open flame
at stove and the gas being open could result in a different action by the Saunders and Watts
Ltd, making the blast avoidable. The same concept of tort law that helps the Rusholme in
their case can also help the Saunders and Watts Ltd in their defense. This is the only point in
the case that can go against the Rusholme and cause them a major setback.
The vicarious liability is only applicable when a person is acting as an agent on behalf
of another. A company employee cannot be held liable personally when he is acting on behalf
of a company. The company will be liable fully under the law of vicarious liability. This is a
form of strict liability.
The case against the Saunders and Watts Ltd is a case of negligence and vicarious
liability as the workers were working and performing the duties on behalf of the company
when the accident happened. The concept of agent and principle is applied and the principle
is held liable for the actions of the agent. The workers cannot be held liable personally and
the company will take the whole burden of vicarious liability and pay the damages to the
plaintiff if the case is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
The Rusholme have a strong case and likelihood to win the case against Saunders and
Watts Ltd, but there is a very slight chance of success against the Standard Household
Products Ltd under the Canadian tort laws.