You volunteer to help your neighbor make repairs to their home. The latter lends you a saw, but does not explain how to use it. A few moments later, you cut your finger.
Your child should use a burner during their chemistry class. The teacher fails to inform students about the dangers and precautions to be taken with this type of tool. Your child, unaware of the risks associated with such an instrument, burns himself by hand.
Is it then possible to bring a civil liability action against the owner or the person responsible for the dangerous object in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered? Does failure to inform a user about the hazards and safety rules of a tool represent a sufficiently significant fault to engage the responsibility of the custodian of the device?
Mr. Lambert addresses these issues by explaining to you, using concrete examples, the options available to you when events of this kind occur.
Elements of civil liability
If you are a regular reader of our legal capsules, you will recognize the three essential elements that must be proven if you want to succeed in your civil liability action: fault, damage and the causal link between these two factors.
First, it must be demonstrated that there is harm. It can come in three different forms. Indeed, the damage suffered by the victim can be bodily, moral or material.
With respect to fault, the plaintiff will have to demonstrate that the information that the defendant failed to disclose constituted a fault, relying on the context, usages, and rules of use and safety of the object in question.
In this type of situation, it is important not to forget to prove the causal link, as judges tend to focus more on the causal link between the lack of information and the harm caused. In other words, it must be ensured that the victim would have acted differently, in order to prevent, if he had had the information retained by the person in charge of the tool.
Case law
In order to better understand the importance of causation in situations involving a breach of an obligation to provide information on the part of the defendant, we will explain some cases demonstrating this principle.
In particular, there are several files dealing with accidents caused by the use of a mechanical or band saw.
In the first case, the defendant had allowed his son to borrow his saw from his garage. The father had owned the saw for more than 10 years and had never used the security guard that could be installed in front of the blade to prevent the risk of cutting. His son used to use this saw, but despite his experience, he cut off his fingers, while he was unaware of the existence of the blade guard. The plaintiff appealed against his father, arguing that knowledge of the safety features would have prevented his harm. At first glance, the son’s recourse seems solid. However, the Court pointed out that there is no causal link between that lack of information and the damage suffered by the plaintiff. Indeed, this was an informed victim, who was well aware of the risks and dangers associated with such a tool. The father had shown her how to safely use the saw, in the state it was, without injuring himself. The court points out that the harm was therefore not caused by the father’s lack of information, but rather by the negligent conduct of the plaintiff who had not complied with the defendant’s instructions and had acted recklessly. The Court then concluded that he was the sole author of his misfortune.
In another case dealing with similar circumstances, the Court recalls that when it comes to a dangerous tool, the person who uses it accepts the possible risks associated with its use, in the same way as an athlete who accepts the risks associated with extreme sport. Therefore, a person who knows that a blade guard can reduce the risk of injury and consents to its use despite the absence of such a device finds himself without recourse to the courts, if his bold gesture leads to an accident.
Another factor to consider, in addition to neglect and acceptance of risk on the part of the victim, is the experience of the victim. For example, in a case involving a master’s student in chemistry who had injured himself using a laser provided by the school, placing him directly in front of his eye, the Court decided that the victim was solely responsible for his accident. It concluded that this was not the first time he had used such a tool and that despite the lack of instructions from the school, a reasonable student in the same circumstances would not have aimed at the laser in the direction of his own eye.
In short, recourse is always possible against the owner or manager of the dangerous tool if no safety information has been transmitted to the person who used it, provided that the causal link between this lack of information and the damage caused is proved. As all cases are a case in point, the circumstances of the event and the qualities of the victim will certainly play a role in the court’s assessment of the causal link.
If you have suffered bodily injury as a result of an unfortunate accident, do not hesitate to contact our firm.
If you liked this article and want to read more, follow our Facebook page so you don’t miss our weekly legal capsules on different legal topics!