Bettel Case Summary

• Some Cases related to Company’s Liability in respect of Tort

I. Bettel et al. v. Yim, (1978), 20 O.R. (2d)

In 1976, Howard Bettel and some friends entered Ki Yim’s store. After the boys began acting outrageously, an employee asked them to leave. Instead of immediately leaving the property, the boys went to the front of the store and began throwing wooden matches on the sidewalk. One of the matches ignited and caused a small fire inside the store. The employee and the owner of the store put out the fire and Yim grabbed Bettel with both hands to restrain him. While grabbing Bettel, Yim’s forehead hit him in the face causing severe injuries to his nose.
Bettel filed a suit against Yim asking for damages due to the assault. Bettel’s father also sued for over $1,000 for medical expenses. The judge hearing the case ruled in favor of Bettel, stating that the act fell under the premise of battery. Though Yim did not intend to hit Bettel in the nose, he had knowledge that his actions could cause harm. Bettel was awarded $5,000 and his father was awarded the amount needed to cover medical expenses.

II. Palsgraf v. Long

because of their worker’s negligence. At first, the decision of the court found in favour of Palsgraf but then was appealed by the defendant and it was favour of defendant side. It is because before an action may be considered negligent, a failed duty to the individual complaining must be found, which would have averted or avoided the injury. . Nothing about the situation reasonably suggested that the fall of the package would result in an explosion which would harm those at a distance. As such, there was nothing which could foreseeably be done to prevent the accident. Thus, the defendant did not act toward the plaintiff negligently. Any negligence was to the passenger the contents of whose package were destroyed. So the court decided that, the defendant was not