Glass Jaw Principle: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Tort Law]] | [[Category:Tort Law]] | ||
[[Category:Legal Principles]] | |||
[[Category:Negligence]] | |||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gs7w5 TET-62956-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38292 (ON LTB)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gs7w5 TET-62956-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38292 (ON LTB)]== | ||
Latest revision as of 19:36, 11 June 2020
TET-62956-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38292 (ON LTB)
86. Abatement is a contractual remedy. Unlike in tort law, contract law does not recognise the “glass jaw” plaintiff. If you hit someone in the face and it turns out that person has a glass jaw and their face is shattered to a degree that you could not have expected, you will still be held responsible for the full extent of the harm inflicted. You take your plaintiff as you find them. That is not the case in contract law. In contract the issue is one of reasonable expectation. As the Landlord here had no idea of the Tenant’s anxiety disorder he could not have known how dramatically his behaviour would have impacted the Tenant. In contract he cannot be held liable for additional damages for her particular susceptibility unless he knew about it.
