FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,715 times | Saved to 323 briefcases
Kamloops (City) v Nielsen (1984), 10 DLR (4th) 641 (SCC) (Link)

Ratio:

In determining whether a duty of care exists:
** 1. Is there a sufficiently close relationship between the parties ... so that in the reasonable contemplation of the defendant, carelessness on its part might cause damage to the plaintiff?
** 2. If so, are there any considerations which out to negative or limit:
*** A) the scope of the duty; and
*** B) the class of persons to whom it is owed; or
*** C) the damages to which a breach of it may give rise

Analysis:

The Kamloops (based on Anns v Merton) is flexible and expansive:
** First part requires the plaintiff to prove reasonable foreseeability of harm; then the prima facie duty of care can exist.
** Second part requires the defendant to establish why a duty of care nevertheless should be refused or limited.
** This test is plaintiff-oriented.

Comments:

New key case is Cooper v Hobart (2001), 206 DLR (4th) 193 (SCC)


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.