Compare Mazetti v Armour & Co 135 P 633 (1913) a landmark in product
liability: I refer to it in PRODUCT LIABILITY (1994) at 21 and 70 and in
other writings.

Jane


On 2018-05-15 16:29, Stephen Pitel wrote:
> In the context of the debate over the reasoning in _Rankin's Garage_,
> readers might find interesting the Court of Appeal for Ontario's
> decision in _1688782 Ontario Inc. v Maple Leaf Foods Inc._, 2018 ONCA
> 407 (available at
> http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0407.htm [1]).
>
> The case deals with an alleged duty of care owed by a manufacturer of
> ready-to-eat meats to the franchisees of a sandwich restaurant (Mr
> Sub) that used the manufacturer's meats. The manufacturer's meats
> became contaminated, triggering a recall. The franchisees lost sales
> and goodwill as a result.
>
> The court found no duty owed to the franchisees. It held that the
> losses sustained were not reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer
> (para 84).
>
> While the manufacturer was under a duty to supply meat fit for human
> consumption, and was taken to have represented that to the
> franchisees, the court held "the type of injury claimed – economic
> losses arising from reputational harm – did not fall within the
> scope of any duty owed to the franchisees" (para 68).
>
> It may be interesting that the duty analysis does not refer to any of
> the cases about the supply of hazardous products or structures (the
> _Winnipeg Condominium _line of authorities).
>
> Stephen
>
> --
>
> Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
> Faculty of Law, Western University
> (519) 661-2111 ext 88433
> President, University of Western Ontario Faculty Association
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0407.htm