CIP C13- Insurance against liability EXAM | MOST RECENT
EXAM 2026 ACTUAL COMPLETE FREQUENTLY MOST
TESTED REAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED
SOLUTIONS/GET IT 100% ACCURATE!! ALREADY
GRADED A+ | NEWEST EXAM | JUST RELEASED!!
C13- Insurance against liability
Bailee's Duty of Care - ANSWER-- A bailor is the owner of
property who
temporarily transfers the possession of
property to another.
- A bailee is the party who receives the property for an agreed
period of time. A bailee owes a duty to the bailor to take care
of such property.
- A bailment could be for the sole benefit of the bailor.
- There would be an accompanying low duty of care owed to
the bailor. - When the bailment is for the mutual benefit of
both parties and a contract exists between the two parties, the
term of the contract may alter a duty of care, however, the
duty would generally be higher than in the other scenarios
mentioned.
Proving Negligence based on Breach of Statue - ANSWER-- The
supreme court of Canada set out the rules to follow in order to
prove a negligence claim based on the breach of a statue in R.
in the right of Canada v. Saskatchewan wheat pool.
,o 1. The statue must have been breached
o 2. The conduct which was a breach of the statue must also
have caused the damage for which compensation is sought o
3. The statue must have been intended to prevent the damage
which occurred.
o 4. The person making the claim must be among the group
which the statue was intended to protect.
B. Breach of Duty - ANSWER-- Whether a defendant is in
breach of duty of care must be assessed.
- Plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the duty
that was identified - Law is kept in balance by applying the
legal concept of foreseeability. - The law provides a defence to
show that it was not foreseeable that his or her actions would
cause harm to the injured party.
Foreseeability: - ANSWER-- There could be circumstances in
which comparatively minor negligence would result in
enormous damage due to a peculiar chain of events.
- For many years, when damage resulted from a negligent
act, the negligent party would be held responsible even know
a reasonable person could not have foreseen such fire
consequences. - Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Ltd.
o A wooden plank was negligently dropped into the hold of
a ship causing a spark to ignite gas vapour in the hold
resulting in complete destruction of the ship. They were held
liable even know the fall of the plank could not have been
expected to destroy the ship. - Wagon Mound Case
,o Polemis decision was overruled in 1961 by the Privy
Council In the Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. V. Morts Dock
and Engineering Co. on appeal from the Australian courts. o
Expert opinion was that it was highly unlikely that fuel oil
floating on the water could be ignited o By a freak
circumstance, cotton waste floating in the oil was ignited by
the sparks, causing considerable damage to property. o The
Privy Council held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that
such circustances would arise and, therefore, despite their
negligence, the defendants were not liable.
- Circumstances similar to the preceding cases are referred to
as remoteness of damage when pleading a defence.
- The test of foresight has been applied to many cases in the
past.
- The test has been criticized that it does not excuse courts
from making difficult decisions based on whether the
defendant, whose conduct falls below the standard of the
community, should be relieved from paying for damages
caused.
C. Causal Relationship between Breach and Damages -
ANSWER-Causation - To collect damages from a torefeasor
he or she must be able to show the court that it was in fact
the breach that caused the damage being claimed. - The
proximate cause rule is applied - there must exist an
uninterrupted unfolding of events without the intervention of
another main cause from the initial act to the conclusion.
, *Definition* Proximate Cause - ANSWER-An uninterrupted
unfolding of events
without the intervention of another main cause from the
initial act to the
conclusion.
- Damages must be expressed in monetary terms.
- Most liability policies limit the type of damages recoverable in
the insuring agreement to compensatory damages.
- Compensatory Damages - refer to money that will reimburse
the plaintiff for the injury or loss actually suffered.
Compensatory Damages traditionally divided into two
categories: - ANSWER-o Special Damages - awarded for out-of-
pocket expenses such as doctor bills, damaged clothing and
salary already lost. Special damages compensate plaintiffs for
those expenses they have already incurred. Generally, plaintiffs
would be expected to provide receipts for any such
expenditures being claimed. o General Damages - compensate
the victim for non-monetary, hard to quantify aspects of a
claim. Such damages require the discretion of the judge to fix
the amount which will properly compensate the injured party.
These damages are calculated by considering, among other
factors, the pain and suffering of the injured party, loss of
enjoyment of life, future expenses and future loss of salary,
and permanent disability.
- Award for economic loss are common when physical injury to
person or property has occurred.
EXAM 2026 ACTUAL COMPLETE FREQUENTLY MOST
TESTED REAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED
SOLUTIONS/GET IT 100% ACCURATE!! ALREADY
GRADED A+ | NEWEST EXAM | JUST RELEASED!!
C13- Insurance against liability
Bailee's Duty of Care - ANSWER-- A bailor is the owner of
property who
temporarily transfers the possession of
property to another.
- A bailee is the party who receives the property for an agreed
period of time. A bailee owes a duty to the bailor to take care
of such property.
- A bailment could be for the sole benefit of the bailor.
- There would be an accompanying low duty of care owed to
the bailor. - When the bailment is for the mutual benefit of
both parties and a contract exists between the two parties, the
term of the contract may alter a duty of care, however, the
duty would generally be higher than in the other scenarios
mentioned.
Proving Negligence based on Breach of Statue - ANSWER-- The
supreme court of Canada set out the rules to follow in order to
prove a negligence claim based on the breach of a statue in R.
in the right of Canada v. Saskatchewan wheat pool.
,o 1. The statue must have been breached
o 2. The conduct which was a breach of the statue must also
have caused the damage for which compensation is sought o
3. The statue must have been intended to prevent the damage
which occurred.
o 4. The person making the claim must be among the group
which the statue was intended to protect.
B. Breach of Duty - ANSWER-- Whether a defendant is in
breach of duty of care must be assessed.
- Plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the duty
that was identified - Law is kept in balance by applying the
legal concept of foreseeability. - The law provides a defence to
show that it was not foreseeable that his or her actions would
cause harm to the injured party.
Foreseeability: - ANSWER-- There could be circumstances in
which comparatively minor negligence would result in
enormous damage due to a peculiar chain of events.
- For many years, when damage resulted from a negligent
act, the negligent party would be held responsible even know
a reasonable person could not have foreseen such fire
consequences. - Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Ltd.
o A wooden plank was negligently dropped into the hold of
a ship causing a spark to ignite gas vapour in the hold
resulting in complete destruction of the ship. They were held
liable even know the fall of the plank could not have been
expected to destroy the ship. - Wagon Mound Case
,o Polemis decision was overruled in 1961 by the Privy
Council In the Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. V. Morts Dock
and Engineering Co. on appeal from the Australian courts. o
Expert opinion was that it was highly unlikely that fuel oil
floating on the water could be ignited o By a freak
circumstance, cotton waste floating in the oil was ignited by
the sparks, causing considerable damage to property. o The
Privy Council held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that
such circustances would arise and, therefore, despite their
negligence, the defendants were not liable.
- Circumstances similar to the preceding cases are referred to
as remoteness of damage when pleading a defence.
- The test of foresight has been applied to many cases in the
past.
- The test has been criticized that it does not excuse courts
from making difficult decisions based on whether the
defendant, whose conduct falls below the standard of the
community, should be relieved from paying for damages
caused.
C. Causal Relationship between Breach and Damages -
ANSWER-Causation - To collect damages from a torefeasor
he or she must be able to show the court that it was in fact
the breach that caused the damage being claimed. - The
proximate cause rule is applied - there must exist an
uninterrupted unfolding of events without the intervention of
another main cause from the initial act to the conclusion.
, *Definition* Proximate Cause - ANSWER-An uninterrupted
unfolding of events
without the intervention of another main cause from the
initial act to the
conclusion.
- Damages must be expressed in monetary terms.
- Most liability policies limit the type of damages recoverable in
the insuring agreement to compensatory damages.
- Compensatory Damages - refer to money that will reimburse
the plaintiff for the injury or loss actually suffered.
Compensatory Damages traditionally divided into two
categories: - ANSWER-o Special Damages - awarded for out-of-
pocket expenses such as doctor bills, damaged clothing and
salary already lost. Special damages compensate plaintiffs for
those expenses they have already incurred. Generally, plaintiffs
would be expected to provide receipts for any such
expenditures being claimed. o General Damages - compensate
the victim for non-monetary, hard to quantify aspects of a
claim. Such damages require the discretion of the judge to fix
the amount which will properly compensate the injured party.
These damages are calculated by considering, among other
factors, the pain and suffering of the injured party, loss of
enjoyment of life, future expenses and future loss of salary,
and permanent disability.
- Award for economic loss are common when physical injury to
person or property has occurred.
