Lecture 8.docx

3 Pages
71 Views
Unlock Document

Department
commerce
Course
Comm 304
Professor
Balbinder S.Deo
Semester
Fall

Description
Lecture Eight  1976 occupiers liability changed- anyone who was trespassing  Section 2- common law is different, superseded by this act  Section 9- overrides everything except...., certain statutes give a higher duty of care than a normal liability to the occupier o E.g. the hotel keeper is usually the liable person for goods, unless they have put notice o If the legal notice is on the hotel, if you lose anything or someone steals from you, then you will get compensated, innkeeper is liable o Later it was decided that is too much liability, notice should be posted behind front desk, public places, behind the door, washrooms, etc. o Common carriers must post something; limit their liability in their contract so they are not liable for any lost packages/mail, etc.  Basic duty that is owed to someone coming onto your premises is reasonable care to keep them reasonably safe  If the person is coming on your property to steal from you or is a trespasser, the duties of care you owe them are o not to create a danger with deliberate notion of causing harm o not to act with reckless disregard with presence of person on your property  restrict duty, modify duty or exclude duty- if this is written were it is drawn to people’s attention, then you are not owed the standard duty of care  What happens if a person gets injured by a dog on your property? o Owner’s answer when he was sued was that the dog was chained and there was no way for it to come up to the front door and hurt anyone o Under the dog owner’s act, if your dog causes injury to anyone, absolute liability, is rare and only happens by statute, no common law o Absolute liability-plaintiff has to prove, in this case that the dog caused the injury, no need to fault proof (balance of probability), no duty of care is taken into consideration, defendant has to prove that the defendant was not negligent  Strict liability- imposed by statute, if x happens, then you are liable (e.g. transporting dangerous chemicals; ensure you to do as much as you can for safety of others since they are liable  Negligence not important, only that these people are responsible for the result (strict l.)  Formula for Rylands vs. Fletcher, the court decided that if you have something that is inherently dangerous, in and of itself dangerous, and that thing escapes from your property and causes injury, you are liable (doesn’t have to be negligent) o Middle of 19 century, Rylands and Fletcher, two farmers who had farms side by side on a large hill, Rylands had a whole lump of crops growing and a river that ran through his property, Fletcher had crops, but no river o Fletcher decided to build a reservoir so e could get easy access to water, he had best engineers come in to check land, and no one was negligent to make sure the water was safe to be sent down in a reservoir. However, in the past, there were tin mines running under the property of both homes. o Reservoir filled with rain water, bottom of it gave way, and all the water came down, and wiped out Ryland’s crops o Noting negligent had been done o Water had escaped from Fletcher’s property and damaged Rylands crops, it was inherently dangerous, strict liability applied o Also includes natural things on your property, that is dangerous=strict liability Conspiracy  If you get together with someone else and cut prices toget
More Less

Related notes for Comm 304

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit