Law Society of Ontario (LSO) Paralegal Practice Exam

Which of the following is a possible defense under the Highway Traffic Act?

1. Negligence per se

2. Officially induced error

3. Contributory negligence

4. Res ipsa loquitur

The correct answer is: Officially induced error

Under the Highway Traffic Act, the concept of "officially induced error" serves as a potential defense in situations where an individual relies on incorrect information provided by a public authority. This principle emphasizes that when a person acts based on guidance from a government official or agency, and that guidance is later proven to be erroneous, they may not be held liable for the consequences of that action. For example, if a driver receives incorrect information regarding traffic regulations or signage from an official source, and subsequently follows that guidance, they could invoke this defense if they face charges under the Highway Traffic Act. This defense acknowledges the reliance on the validity of the information provided by authorities, potentially absolving the individual of liability. In contrast, the other options do not specifically align with defenses permissible under the Highway Traffic Act. Negligence per se typically refers to legal liability arising from a breach of a statute or regulation, but it does not function as a defense. Contributory negligence involves the plaintiff's own negligence contributing to their harm and is more commonly raised in civil claims rather than as a defense to charges under the Highway Traffic Act. Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine applied in tort cases suggesting negligence can be inferred from the very nature of an accident but does not