Dear all, On the matter of strict liability raised in Gerard Sadlier's note, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal had occasion to touch on that last week. The plaintiff sued the provincial gov't, claiming that its regulation of (and profiting from) coin-operated video lottery terminals exploited his gambling addiction and brought about his financial ruin. The judge at first instance dismissed the negligence claim on the ground that they gov't owed Walsh no duty of care with respect to that loss. The NSCA agreed. They also agreed with the first instance judge who had written the following: [101] The Plaintiff alleges in his pleadings that VLTs are an inherently dangerous product and, as such, fall within the rubric of strict liability. This allegation deserves only brief comment. The application of the doctrine of strict liability is extremely limited in Canada. For example, unlike our neighbours to the South, we have chosen not to extend its application to manufacturers of defective products: Andersen v. St. Judge Medical Inc., [2002] OJ No 260 (SCJ), Goodridge et al. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. et al., 2010 ONSC 1095. [102] The suggestion by the Plaintiff that any basis exists in law for this Court to extend the doctrine of strict liability to a statutory regulator is entirely without merit. The Plaintiff’s claim on this ground has no chance of success. You can find the judgment here: http://decisions.courts.ns.ca/nsc/nsca/en/item/107955/index.do Regards, vb ________________________________________ From: Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com> Sent: February 19, 2015 13:22 To: obligations@uwo.ca Subject: Strict Liability for Escape of Fire in Ireland Dear all, This judgment of the High Court, published today, confirms that in Ireland liability for the escape of fire is generally strict. http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/4825cb95a1e32e9b80257df100405636?OpenDocument