Arnold v. Teno
Encyclopedia
Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 is a leading tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...

 case from the Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...

. This decision was part of a trilogy of personal injury
Personal injury
Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. The term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff's injury has been caused by the negligence of another, but also arises in defamation...

 cases including Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. (1978) and Thornton v. Prince George School Board (1978).

On July 1, 1969, four year-old Diane Teno and her six year-old brother were crossing the street to get some ice cream from the ice cream truck parked on the other side when she was struck by a car driven by Brian Arnold. Teno was rendered severely brain damage
Brain damage
"Brain damage" or "brain injury" is the destruction or degeneration of brain cells. Brain injuries occur due to a wide range of internal and external factors...

d and sued Arnold for damages. At trial Teno was successful and was awarded damages. Arnold appealed the amount awarded.

The issue before the Court was whether the amount of award for damages was correct. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original damage award.

Justice Spence, writing for the majority, observed that the purpose of the award in these circumstances is to ensure that Teno is properly cared for the rest of her life. The sum of $7,500 per year was a "equitable" amount proposed by the Court.

Spence further qualified his decision by acknowledging the fear of overly generous awards for tortious acts stating that "the very real and serious social burden of these exorbitant awards has been illustrated graphically in the United States in cases concerning medical malpractice."
The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK