Date:
Tue, 2 May 2006 13:40:17 -0600
From:
Lewis Klar
Subject:
Childs v. Desormeaux
I
should also resist judgment-anticipation, but Stephen's theory needs
some refinement. As he would undoubtedly agree, most activities
or decisions not to act create foreseeable risks of injury to others.
One is liable however only if that act was done negligently ( eg
was the planning, organizing and hosting of the party done in a
negligent manner?). Also many people are in a "relationship"
with drunks which allow them to influence their conduct (friends,
other people at party, etc.). Do these people owe a duty?
I
think it would be a novel duty, unless the SCC is prepared to concede
that the serving of alcohol by anyone to anyone is itself an unreasonable
act which requires reasonable follow up acts to prevent harm. Maybe
they will decide that, and maybe they should. But in my opinion
that is what it should take.
Should
be interesting,
Lewis
Klar
Professor of Law
University of Alberta
>>>
Stephen Pitel 05/02/06 12:23 PM >>>
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.
<<<<
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next
Message >>>>>
|