Negligence – Rogers Partners LLP https://www.rogerspartners.com Thu, 31 Jul 2025 14:02:20 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19 Essential Expertise: The Importance of Expert Evidence to Inform Standard of Care https://www.rogerspartners.com/essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care https://www.rogerspartners.com/essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care/#respond Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:00:47 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7453 By Riley Groskopf The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a trial decision in the matter of Valerio et al. v. The Corporation of the City of London et al., 2025 ONSC 4332. The plaintiffs, Mr. Valerio and his family, claimed against the City of London as well as a construction company for damages […]

The post Essential Expertise: The Importance of Expert Evidence to Inform Standard of Care appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care/feed/ 0 Contaminated Coffee Found Not Responsible for Plaintiff’s Maladies https://www.rogerspartners.com/contaminated-coffee-found-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-maladies/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=contaminated-coffee-found-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-maladies https://www.rogerspartners.com/contaminated-coffee-found-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-maladies/#respond Wed, 02 Jul 2025 17:21:39 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7438 By Luke Hamer The case of MacNeill v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2025 ONSC 3780, involves a plaintiff who drank coffee from a paper cup she purchased at a McDonald’s restaurant in Orillia, which was later found to contain a diluted deliming agent used to clean the coffee pots. The plaintiff claimed the incident […]

The post Contaminated Coffee Found Not Responsible for Plaintiff’s Maladies appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/contaminated-coffee-found-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-maladies/feed/ 0 Summary Judgment and the Agony of the Moment https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment/#respond Wed, 04 Dec 2024 22:35:34 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7190 By Riley Groskopf In Morales v. Laguardia, 2024 ONCA 869, affirming 2024 ONSC 1533, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion based on a no liability position taken in a motor vehicle accident. Justices MacPherson, Roberts and Wilson penned a strong endorsement of a finding that there was no genuine issue for […]

The post Summary Judgment and the Agony of the Moment appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment/feed/ 0 Foreseeability and Proximity v. Foreseeability and Remoteness – Similar, but Distinct https://www.rogerspartners.com/foreseeability-and-proximity-v-foreseeability-and-remoteness-similar-but-distinct/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=foreseeability-and-proximity-v-foreseeability-and-remoteness-similar-but-distinct https://www.rogerspartners.com/foreseeability-and-proximity-v-foreseeability-and-remoteness-similar-but-distinct/#respond Wed, 18 Oct 2023 18:21:11 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6758 By Celina Stoan On May 4, 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard the appeal of the Town of Milton from the judgment of Justice Mills, dated June 28, 2022, dismissing the third party claim of the Town. In its decision in Case v. Pattison, 2023 ONCA 529, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, […]

The post Foreseeability and Proximity v. Foreseeability and Remoteness – Similar, but Distinct appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/foreseeability-and-proximity-v-foreseeability-and-remoteness-similar-but-distinct/feed/ 0