Nothing more than the There were sober people at the table therefore have no – invitor-invitee reason to believe the drunk would be driving (subjective relationships knowledge) It’s not foreseeable that the drunk would drive Galloway: it’s bizarre that the establishment can be left off the hook by assuming the world would operate in a certain way (wife would drive) Major: accepts this as the standard of care Galloway: Not good authority! Go to Childs Just because you recognize a duty between a commercial establishment and a patron mean you can extend it to 3rd parties out in the world Erroneously recognizes a reliance from 3rd party users of roads Pays much more attention to reasonable foreseeability and less to proximity (problematic) Re: voluntary assumption of risks did Stewart waive her right – by getting into the car with someone she knew had consumed a lot? NO! although likely contributorily negligent Cooper v. Like Scalera a clean (MacLachlin and Major) economic harm – – Hobart 2001 up! (1) For a neighbour relationship, there must be (taking over ANNS 1): ISSUE: whether 1. Proximity (a limiting factor) AND investors can sue a Certain established categories that put you in the public official (registrar realm of duty/ can you analogize to one? of mortgage brokers) Unlikely Anns 2 will be applicable if yes for not investigating a If not, determine if the relationship gives rise to a fraudulent broker duty based on (non-exhaustive factors): quickly enough 1) Expectations 2) Representations The registrar of 3) Reliance (ex. if P vulnerable) mortgage brokers had 4) Property or interests involved (ex. a duty to inform the personal injury vs. emotional/economic public when they harms) suspect fraud and an = essentially asking, is it fair to impose a duty investigation is of care on the defendant (policy reasons underway relating to the relationship in question) Involves 1) economic When will proximity be recognized? Is it related to loss AND 2) reasonable foreseeability or are the two separate? It government liability depends: Personal injury damages, creation of risk (misfeasance) collapsed into one (ex. the language of injury!) Pure economic/ psychiatric harms, allowing risks to exist (non feasance) separate
Nothing more than the invitor-invitee relationships There were sober people at the table – therefore have no reason to believe the drunk would be driving (subjective knowledge) It’s not foreseeable that the drunk would drive Galloway: it’s bizarre that the establishment can be left off the hook by assuming the world would operate in a certain way (wife would drive) Major: accepts this as the standard of care Galloway: Not good authority! Go to Childs Just because you recognize a duty between a commercial establishment and a patron mean you can extend it to 3rd parties out in the world Erroneously recognizes a reliance from 3rd party users of roads Pays much more attention to reasonable foreseeability and less to proximity (problematic) Re: voluntary assumption of risks – did Stewart waive her right by getting into the car with someone she knew had consumed a lot? NO! although likely contributorily negligent Cooper v. Hobart 2001 Like Scalera – a clean up! ISSUE: whether investors can sue a public official (registrar of mortgage brokers) for not investigating a fraudulent broker quickly enough The registrar of mortgage brokers had a duty to inform the public when they suspect fraud and an investigation is underway Involves 1) economic loss AND 2) government liability (MacLachlin and Major) – economic harm (1) For a neighbour relationship, there must be (taking over ANNS 1): 1. Proximity (a limiting factor) AND Certain established categories that put you in the realm of duty/ can you analogize to one? Unlikely Anns 2 will be applicable if yes If not, determine if the relationship gives rise to a duty based on (non-exhaustive factors): 1) Expectations 2) Representations 3) Reliance (ex. if P vulnerable) 4) Property or interests involved (ex. personal injury vs. emotional/economic harms) = essentially asking, is it fair to impose a duty of care on the defendant (policy reasons relating to the relationship in question) When will proximity be recognized? Is it related to reasonable foreseeability or are the two separate? It depends: Personal injury damages, creation of risk (misfeasance) collapsed into one (ex. the language of injury!) Pure economic/ psychiatric harms, allowing risks to exist (non feasance) separate