I. Kirby

The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic after diving into a shallow above-ground pool at his aunt's farm.

He brought an action against the defendant, a friend of his cousin, who had assisted in moving a wooden platform next to the pool a few weeks prior to the accident.

The court found that the defendant was not involved in the design or construction of the platform, and merely helped move it.

The court held that the plaintiff's injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions, and there was insufficient proximity to establish a duty of care.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff manufacturing company sued its freight broker and transport carrier for the $206,509 cost of cleaning up a chemical spill.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached a 'direct drive' delivery contract by picking up other loads, which blocked access to the plaintiff's shipment and forced the plaintiff's employee to unload a skid of white paint.

The employee punctured the paint tote with a forklift and then washed the spilled paint into a storm sewer.

The court found the freight broker breached the direct drive contract, but dismissed the action because the damages were caused solely by the plaintiff's employee's negligence in operating the forklift and responding to the spill, which was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.

The statutory third party insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the defendant driver was excluded from coverage because he was engaged in a 'race' or 'speed test' when he caused a fatal collision while driving up to 215 km/h.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that excessive speed alone does not constitute a race or speed test under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the driver lacked the intention to test the speed of the vehicle or engage in a contest, and therefore the insurer remained liable to compensate the plaintiffs.