|
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:01:20 -0400 From: David Cheifetz Subject: Apportionment of Fault, Seatbelts, Arbitrary Range
Dear Colleagues Some of you may be interested in the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision Snushall v Fulsang. The panel considers whether there should be an arbitrary range of seatbelt fault reduction and holds there should be. Its reasons for doing so include logic that conflates causation and responsibility (blameworthiness), an issue recently discussed on this list. The panel held there is an arbitrary range, so that a jury apportionment sufficiently outside the range may be set aside as being unreasonable as a matter of law. Also, the case is an appeal from a jury decision. So, the panel should have considered whether the conclusion that there is an arbitrary range is precluded by s. 7 of the Ontario Negligence Act which provides: "In any action tried with a jury, the degree of fault or negligence of the respective parties is a question of fact for the jury." I suppose the response could have been: holding that there is a range, and upper and lower limits, is a matter of law for the court; where in the range is the jury's provenance. But that analysis isn't there. The section of the legislation isn't mentioned and there's nothing in the reasons to indicate whether the panel considered it, let alone whether the section was mentioned in argument or the parties' facta.
David
Cheifetz
<<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»