Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:50:12 -0500

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Liesbosch

A question for our English friends:

Why is it that the cost of renting a car is not covered by the injured party's insurance as is routinely done in Canada (or at least in Ontario)? In other words why is there even a "credit-hire" business -- statute, commercial habit, etc? For example, the last time I had an accident, I merely went to the car rental company and they billed my insurance company directly.

Cheers,

Andrew Tettenborn wrote:

Not with a bang, but with a whimper, one might say, in view of the fact that the Liesbosch rule had been more hole than shirt since as long as I can remember. It's worth noting that there's a good deal more in Lagden, too: mitigation, discussion of forced betterment, and some discussion of compensation for loss of use of chattels where you don't hire a replacement.

On the same day, see too Marcic v Thames Water. An interesting case on the relation between common law nuisance and statutory liability (where there's a statutory scheme, nuisance is less likely to embrace failure to act - hence no common law liability re failure to spend £1 bn on upgrading most of the sewers in London): not to mention the effect of our human rights legislation on tort liability ( Thames Water's inaction did impinge on right to privacy & the home, but impact justified in human rights terms because enforcement authorities have a sizeable margin of appreciation).

--
Jason Neyers
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

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