Stella bought a cup of coffee at the drive-through window at a coffee shop. Holding the cup between her knees and attempting to take off the lid to add cream, she spilled the coffee. She suffered burns to her thighs. If this happened in Canada, which of the following would be true?

A) If Stella sues the coffee shop for negligence, she will only have to prove that the company owed her a duty of care.
B) If Stella sues the coffee shop, the company's best argument is that it didn't owe her a duty of care.
C) To succeed with the defence that she volunteered to take the risk, the coffee shop would have to prove that she deliberately spilled the coffee.
D) If the coffee shop claims there was no way to reasonably foresee that Stella would be harmed, the plaintiff's case would be dismissed even though she suffered burns.
E) If the court finds the plaintiff contributorily negligent causing 60% of her loss, she will not be compensated for the 60% by the defendant.

Question

Kylah Essex · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : E, Explanation :  In Canadian negligence law, if a plaintiff is found to be contributorily negligent, their compensation is reduced by the percentage they are found at fault. Therefore, if Stella is found to be 60% responsible for her injuries, she would not be compensated for that 60% of her loss.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions