Class Notes (810,200)
Canada (493,988)
Philosophy (1,287)

Class 6 Answers.docx

3 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Philosophy 2080
James Hildebrand

Class 6 Answers Answers to Questions for Class 6: 1. In Jordan House v Menow and Honsberger, explain the defendant’s position in regard to statutory liability. The defendant argued that since the Liquor License Act made reference to liability for wrongful death in very particular circumstances, then this was the only liability contemplated by the Act. This is a rule of statutory interpretation: when a statute includes specific things, then it is presumed the legislators left out other things intentionally. The court rejected this argument. 2. In the same case, did the trial court find the duty of care owed to the plaintiff in a statute? If so, which statute? Here is another reference to the Liquor License Act. The defendant tried to rely on the Act to also establish it had a right to eject the plaintiff from the premises. The court did not agree, but did refer to theAct to conclude that while the Act would allow for a removal from the premises, it also implied that must be done in such a way as not to harm the patron/ plaintiff. The Act did not create liability, but it was evidence to establish a common law duty of care. A primary feature of this case was also that the plaintiff was an invitee, and the defendant as invitor owed him a duty of care not to injure him. 3. What was the defendant’s cost of avoidance in the case? Pretty low: they could have driven him home, called him a cab, or given him a room upstairs. 4. Do you see the availability of insurance as a factor in this case? Or cases like it? It is not so apparent in this case, at least when reading the judgment. But you can easily surmise: a business, especially one serving alcohol, and a driver of a car, in all likelihood, are insured. Where there is insurance, there is money, and, not surprising, there will be a lawyer. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is predictable. Motor vehicle insurance, business insurance, and even homeowner’s insurance will insure a party for negligent acts. In this case, the court found all three parties liable. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent for his own injuries. You should also consider the effect of the Negligence Act, if not in this case, certainly in others. The Negligence Act makes multiple tortfeasors jointly and severally liable. A plaintiff will sue anyone potentially liable, and can collect all the money from the party that is insured, as long as they are liable for any portion of the claim. So I don’t see insurance has having an impact on this judgment, but it may have had an impact on who was sued and perhaps whether a law suit was commenced at all. It is hard to resist the compensation focus when money is available. 5. In the Dobson case, is the majority opinion consistent with traditional tort concepts? I would argue no. The two perfectly sound principles based on traditional tort concepts told us mom was liable. This is a shocking conclusion in many ways. But it doesn’t shock our concept of tort law.City of City of Kamloops v. Nielsen, v. Nielsen is actually quite a departure from traditional tort law principles: it says when the law leads us to liability, there may be public
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.