Torts and Professional Liability

2855 Words12 Pages
Case 6 a) There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on…show more content…
In the case Tardif v. Wiebe, Tardif, a bouncer, was liable for physically assaulting a patron of a bar. But what is interesting is that the Hotel was vicariously liable for Tardifs “ excessive and unjustified force”. This applies to this case because Dale acted with excessive and unjustifiable force on Bob. In Tardif v. Weibe, the courts ruled the fact that the business instructed employees not to use force does not operate as a defense. So, even though Wal-Marts training video that clearly states that no chokeholds are to be used on any suspected shoplifter, Wal-Mart can not use this as a defense. Investing in training one’s staff could have prevented this. c) Dale could claim that he was acting in reasonable manner according to section 494 (1) of the criminal code. That he reasonably believed Bob had committed the criminal offense of stealing and had to forcibly restrain the said thief because police would not make it to the scene on time. If you refer to R. v. Chen, Chen claimed he had to forcibly restrain the thief because the police were too busy to respond promptly to complaints of shoplifting. Dale could say Bob was resisting even after Dale showed his badge and that restraining him was his only option to prevent the theft. The supervisor could possibly claim that he did not owe a duty of care and that the duty of care fell onto Dale, the loss prevention officer. Therefor, not
Open Document