Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 14:23:56 -0400

From: Stephen Pitel

Subject: Childs v. Desormeaux

I'm sorry, but in a heightened state of judgment-anticipation I can't resist. I hope Vaughan's prediction is wrong. Childs v. Desormeaux does not involve a novel duty of care. Planning, organizing and hosting an alcohol-related event creates a foreseeable risk of physical injury to guests and others, including users of the road. Further, social hosts put themselves into a relationship with their guests which gives them the ability to take reasonable steps to influence their conduct, such as making inquiries into their fitness to drive and attempting to dissuade them from driving. On either of these bases (especially the former) - actions giving risk to a foreseeable risk of physical injury or the duty to control in instances of a special relationship - the social host situation falls within two well-established categories of duty of care, as outlined expressly in Cooper v. Hobart. There should be no need to treat the case as involving a novel duty.

Stephen

Vaughan Black wrote:

And on Friday the Supreme Court of Canada will hand down its decision in Childs v. Desormeaux, which will provide us with this year's version of how to establish whether there is a duty of care in novel negligence claims.

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