negligently Ex. cladding falls off the building because of the negligently manufactured that it metal ties becomes If it can be held that a latent defect of a specific part of the building, that dangerous problematic piece is a property damage issue, not pure economic loss AKA dividing the building into its constituent harms Laforest No this is one building, all part of the same thing that is one entity and – has an identity What makes the ties and cladding part of the building is that they’re interdependent one is fully dependent on another and it – forms one thing A furnace, though, can be taken out it’s new property. If a – building burns down due to the furnace, then that’s property damage Therefore economic losses HELD: the individual can turn to the original builder and sue them for the economic losses incurred to negate the danger Laforet seems to say often that there’s good reason to not extend liability to economic losses try to box off and limit this area as much as possible – AND YET for reasons of social policy, more than willing to recognize economic losses in the Winnipeg case, and this does not open the door to indeterminacy RATIO - LaForest: Assuming the losses are economic, para 21 suggests that a person participating in the construction of a large and permanent structure that has the capacity to cause serious damage to other persons should be held to a reasonable standard of care Galloway: he does so for social/ policy reasons, hasn’t really thought through what the consequences are 1) The argument seems to be based on social responsibility (undertaking to build a permanent building) that gives rise to liability to the public, rather than on any relationship with the future owners. Buildings have a long life: duty not only to original inhabitant but to future inhabitants (there are the members of the public likely to be affected) too (para 35) This is who bears the risk Galloway: but I thought the duty was actually to the owners! What if the owners of the building are not the inhabitants? The owners are not at risk of being hurt … If the building falls apart, the owners are only suffering economic loss Are the builders are liable for that?? Laforest isn’t super helpful here 2) Rivtow Marine Argument (follows dissent it’s efficient to allow people to sue original – contractor) FACTS: Crane is faulty (has a crack), manufacturer informs charter, costs money to repair Dissent: there should be liability for repair
negligently that it becomes dangerous Ex. cladding falls off the building because of the negligently manufactured metal ties If it can be held that a latent defect of a specific part of the building, that problematic piece is a property damage issue, not pure economic loss AKA dividing the building into its constituent harms Laforest No – this is one building, all part of the same thing that is one entity and has an identity What makes the ties and cladding part of the building is that they’re interdependent – one is fully dependent on another and it forms one thing A furnace, though, can be taken out – it’s new property. If a building burns down due to the furnace, then that’s property damage Therefore economic losses HELD: the individual can turn to the original builder and sue them for the economic losses incurred to negate the danger Laforet seems to say often that there’s good reason to not extend liability to economic losses – try to box off and limit this area as much as possible AND YET for reasons of social policy, more than willing to recognize economic losses in the Winnipeg case, and this does not open the door to indeterminacy RATIO - LaForest: Assuming the losses are economic, para 21 suggests that a person participating in the construction of a large and permanent structure that has the capacity to cause serious damage to other persons should be held to a reasonable standard of care Galloway: he does so for social/ policy reasons, hasn’t really thought through what the consequences are 1) The argument seems to be based on social responsibility (undertaking to build a permanent building) that gives rise to liability to the public, rather than on any relationship with the future owners. Buildings have a long life: duty not only to original inhabitant but to future inhabitants (there are the members of the public likely to be affected) too (para 35) This is who bears the risk Galloway: but I thought the duty was actually to the owners! What if the owners of the building are not the inhabitants? The owners are not at risk of being hurt … If the building falls apart, the owners are only suffering economic loss Are the builders are liable for that?? Laforest isn’t super helpful here 2) Rivtow Marine Argument (follows dissent – it’s efficient to allow people to sue original contractor) FACTS: Crane is faulty (has a crack), manufacturer informs charter, costs money to repair Dissent: there should be liability for repair
Zheng%20-%20LAW%20108C%20-%20Case%20Table.docx