Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:16:49 -0400

From: John Swan

Subject: A Change of Topic

If the fascinating exchanges on Childs v. Desormeaux have run their course - and I don't want to interrupt then if they have not - may I suggest that members look at the decision of Cullity J. in Serhan v. Johnson & Johnson? The judgment is fairly recent but is now before the Divisional Court whose judgment is expected any day.

While the case only involves the question whether the plaintiffs in a proposed class proceeding have stated a cause of action, the justification for the trial judge's conclusion that they have are interesting - one might even say startling.

The case has parallels with Borders (U.K.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [2005] EWCA Civ 197, [2005] All E.R. (D.) 60 (March), the comment on which by David Campbell and James Devenney in the Cambridge Law Journal, 65(1), March 2006, pp. 208–225, I have just read (and enjoyed).

I would be very interested to have the opinions of members of the ODG imagine what the Divisional Court might or should do, bearing in mind that the question before the court is a preliminary one, viz., whether the plaintiffs have stated a cause of action.

John Swan
and another,

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Stevens
Sent: May 3, 2006 3:52 PM
To: Lewis KLAR
Subject: RE: ODG: Childs v. Desormeaux

I admit that I think that goes too far. I can see an argument for saying that a host has assumed responsibility towards his guests, and that when they are so drunk as to be unable to make rational decisions he owes them a duty of care to stop serving. I didn't think that that was our hypothetical however.

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