Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:16

From: Michael Jones

Subject: Contributory negligence in strict liability?

In English cases of employers' liability based on the common law action for breach of statutory duty contributory negligence is routinely pleaded, even where the duty can be said to fairly strict.

And, under the Animals Act 1971, s. 2(1) provides for a very strict form of liability for animals belonging to a dangerous species (which clearly covers tigers), yet s. 10 permits the defence of contributory negligence.

Michael

--------------------------------------
Michael A. Jones
Professor of Common Law
Liverpool Law School
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
L69 3BX

Phone: (0)151 794 2821
Fax: (0)151 794 2829
--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lionel Smith
Sent: Fri 23/03/2007 20:27
Subject: ODG: Contributory negligence in strict liability?

If the plaintiff is injured by the defendant's tiger (yes really) and relies on Rylands, can the defendant plead contributory negligence? Left open by a majority of the Ontario CA, by agreeing with the trial judge that there was no evidence of contributory negligence; it was the attack by the tigers which somehow opened the electric windows on the plaintiffs' car. Borins JA, dissenting, thought there should be an inquiry into contributory negligence.

Cowles v Balac.

Leave to appeal was denied by the SCC earlier this month.

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