Reasonable Foreseeability is an important concept in personal injury law cases when it comes to establishing liability. A basic tenant of personal injury law is that a person or entity (for example a business) can be held liable for injuries caused by their action (or inaction) if it was foreseeable that those actions (or inaction) could lead to such an injury. The important question to ask is would a reasonable person in the same situation have anticipated that the conduct of the person or entity could have resulted in harm to others. The concept of reasonable foreseeability is a key element in negligence claims where legislation does not dictate fault (for example, in motor vehicle claims where there is legislation that specifically states what motorists can and can’t do in certain circumstances).
The Legal Framework in British Columbia
In British Columbia, in the elements required to successfully bring a personal injury claim in negligence are that there was:
- a duty of care owed to the Plaintiff
- a breach of the duty of care owed to the Plaintiff by act or omission
- causation, whereby the breach of duty caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury
- foreseeability of injury whereby the harm suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the Defendant’s conduct
When looking specifically at foreseeability, the Courts will examine firstly whether the type of harm suffered was foreseeable and, secondly, whether it was foreseeable that the Plaintiff would suffer that harm in the particular circumstances of the case.
Foreseeability can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the relationship between the parties, the knowledge and understanding the Plaintiff and the Defendants have prior to the subject incident, the specific circumstances surrounding the subject incident, and the nature of the injury suffered. Each case will have specific nuances which will have to be carefully considered by the Court, which can often lead to complex legal arguments.
In the case of Agar v. Weber, 2014 BCCA 297, the British Columbia Court of Appeal emphasized that an occupier breaches the standard of care if their conduct, in all circumstances, creates an unreasonable risk of harm. The court outlined factors to assess this, including:
- Recognizable risk of injury
- Gravity of the risk
- Ease or difficulty of avoiding the risk
- Burden or cost of eliminating the risk
This case underscores that knowledge of a potential hazard imposes a duty to act, regardless of whether injuries have previously occurred.
The case of Rivers v. North Vancouver (District), 2021 BCCA 407, the court considered a negligence claim under the Occupiers Liability Act relating to injury occurring at a baseball game. The decision clarified that determining whether an occupier created an unreasonable risk of harm involves a factual analysis of the circumstances.
Experienced Personal Injury Lawyers
While you may think that questions of reasonable foreseeability should be straightforward, questions of what is or is not reasonably foreseeable can be extremely complex, and there are many cases that have gone to the Courts of Appeal and even the Supreme Court of Canada to address this one issue. An experienced personal injury lawyer can help you understand if you have a claim and, more importantly, can help you fight for your rights against the insurance company.
If you or someone you know has been injured due to the negligence of another, contact the experienced personal injury lawyers at Taylor & Blair LLP today for a free consultation.