Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:50:48 -0600

From: Lewis Klar

Subject: Reasonable Reliance Case: My final point (maybe)

Upon re-reading, there is no doubt that the trial judgment stood. The defendant's "challenge" on the issue of its own liability was made in order to counter the plaintiff's argument that, in view of the reasonableness of its reliance for duty purposes ( which the plaintiff thought erroneously could not be challenged since the defendant did not appeal liability), the plaintiff should not have been found contributorily negligent. The Court of Appeal was saying that although the matter of the defendant's liability was not in issue on this appeal, the fact that it should not have been held liable in the first place because of the plaintiff's own negligence, could legitimately be raised as an argument to the plaintiff's appeal on contributory negligence.

My mind is at ease .. thank you for indulging me.

Lewis Klar

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>