overcrowded. ISSUE: this can lead to bizarre arguments of statutory Complying with this interpretation re: purpose may have saved the People may rely on statutory standards even where the sheep being washed statute is created for other reasons overboard In Odavji, you can rely on statutory standards even when they creat public expectations Ryan v. Flanges on railways Most authoritative case on statutory standards in tort Victoria wide, meet statutory HELD: negligence meeting statutory duty was insufficient to – standards, but a meet CL duty. Statutes do not overrule CL, but may be SCC 1999 Motorcyclist gets a surrogate in some instances wheel caught in it and There’s a floating level of weight that statutory standards may is thrown off and have there are times when some may have much more – injured. Is there tort weight than others depending on the situation and the wording liability despite the on the statute fact that the railway PARA 28: we usually determining whether someone’s met a met the statutory standard a care based on values not facts: standard? Standard 1. Likelihood of known or foreseeable harm was for 90 deg 2. Gravity of Harm (Bolton and Stone) highway crossing 3. Burden or cost would be incurred by preventing the whereas in this case injury the railways were 4. External indicators of reasonable conduct parallel with the road a. Custom b. Industry practice Action was brought 3. Statutory/ regulatory standards against the railway PARA 39-40 are very important and also against the 3 elements are identified as being relevant to the weight city of Victoria (for that statutes warrant: failing to warn) 1. Ordinary v. Unusual Statutory compliance will have more relevance in cases (ex. cases clearly within the “ordinary” intended scope of the statute) than in cases involving special or unusual circumstances Ex. Gorris v. Scott! This is an case “unusual” 2. Specific v. General standards Specific standards stronger than general standards If legislature has involved itself to a high degree of detail, the situation is different than general standards 3. Required v. Authorized The closer you are to statutory duty and the farther you are away from authorization, the greater the weight that will be allocated to the legislation Also, the less discretion the state permits, the greater the weight will be allocated to the legislation
overcrowded. Complying with this may have saved the sheep being washed overboard ISSUE: this can lead to bizarre arguments of statutory interpretation re: purpose People may rely on statutory standards even where the statute is created for other reasons In Odavji, you can rely on statutory standards even when they creat public expectations Ryan v. Victoria SCC 1999 Flanges on railways wide, meet statutory standards, but a Motorcyclist gets a wheel caught in it and is thrown off and injured. Is there tort liability despite the fact that the railway met the statutory standard? Standard was for 90 deg highway crossing whereas in this case the railways were parallel with the road Action was brought against the railway and also against the city of Victoria (for failing to warn) Most authoritative case on statutory standards in tort HELD: negligence – meeting statutory duty was insufficient to meet CL duty. Statutes do not overrule CL, but may be surrogate in some instances There’s a floating level of weight that statutory standards may have – there are times when some may have much more weight than others depending on the situation and the wording on the statute PARA 28: we usually determining whether someone’s met a standard a care based on values not facts: 1. Likelihood of known or foreseeable harm 2. Gravity of Harm (Bolton and Stone) 3. Burden or cost would be incurred by preventing the injury 4. External indicators of reasonable conduct a. Custom b. Industry practice 3. Statutory/ regulatory standards PARA 39-40 are very important 3 elements are identified as being relevant to the weight that statutes warrant: 1. Ordinary v. Unusual Statutory compliance will have more relevance in “ordinary” cases (ex. cases clearly within the intended scope of the statute) than in cases involving special or unusual circumstances Ex. Gorris v. Scott! This is an “unusual” case 2. Specific v. General standards Specific standards stronger than general standards If legislature has involved itself to a high degree of detail, the situation is different than general standards 3. Required v. Authorized The closer you are to statutory duty and the farther you are away from authorization, the greater the weight that will be allocated to the legislation Also, the less discretion the state permits, the greater the weight will be allocated to the legislation
Zheng%20-%20LAW%20108C%20-%20Duty%20of%20Care.docx