Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:50:17 -0500

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: UK Compensation Bill Published

Dear Colleagues:

Israel Gilead wrote:

Regarding the social utility debate let us recall:

a) That the ultimate test as to whether a given conduct is negligent is whether this conduct was a desirable one in the circumstances. The actor is not negligent when she did a right thing and she is negligent when she should have acted differently.

I wonder how that would explain a case like Bradford v. Pickles ('stealing' water meant for a city) where undesirable conduct was not seen to be actionable at all?

b) Under the objective reasonable person standard the decision whether a given conduct was desirable or not is a social decision.

How does this explain why custom is not determinative of whether actions were negligent or that legislation is not determinative of whether something was negligent? If it is a social decision, then through custom or legislation, society has clearly spoken.

Cheers,

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

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