Study Guides (248,280)
Canada (121,450)
Philosophy (375)

POL-Oct22.doc

2 Pages
120 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
Philosophy 2080
Professor
Jeannie Gillmore
Semester
Winter

Description
Read: Essay and 1 case of Contract Law Occupier of lands- have obligations to people who come on to their property, they are liable. Called “occupiers liability” Trespasser- Occupier owes lowest duty of care to the trespasser; can not deliberately injure a trespasser. One exception: if you own a swimming pool, you owe a duty of care to anyone in your pool (thus you must have a fence and other precautionary measures). Trespassers assume all risks, except for traps or devices that might injure you, which the occupier must inform you of. If the occupier does nothing about frequent trespassing over time, you have “assumed consent” Licensee- On the land for the benefit of the occupie. Owe the same duty of care to invitee as licensee Invitee- Customers of a business, highest duty of care owed to the invitee Case Study: Jordan House Ltd. Vs. Menow and Honsberger -Menow a frequent patron of the bar, told he was not allowed there unless he was there with someone responsible -Annoys other patrons, was removed. He got a ride part of the way home, but he was let out on an intersection on the highway, where a car hit him. He sues the hotel bar where he was served for negligence for tossing him out when he was drunk -Liquor License Act tells us the bar can ask him to leave, as long as he is uninjured when you eject him; you can not endanger him -Duty of care to look after people that leave your establishment; duty to not harm him. He is an invitee -1-144: Where any person sells liquor to a person that would become increasingly intoxicated that he would cause damage to himself of others: if he meets death or commits suicide, you have a statutory cause of action -The man who picked him up and dropped him off becomes the novus actus intervenus, the intervening action -Liquor License Act does not describe a statutory right to sue because it would limit the reasons one is allowed to sue for -Bar knew he was drunk, knew he lived close to the hotel, both of which were on the highway -Likelihood of injury is high, likely severity of injury is high. Cost of avoidance is low. They could have called a cab, the police, given him a room for the night, refused to serve him, etc -Liability is found because as an occupier of land, they have a duty to their invitee to ensure they do not get hurt. Menow lacked the capacity to assess the risk because he was drunk. -Judgement: all 3 parties equally at fault Case Study: Dobson vs. Dobson -Mother is driving a car, is pregnant, has an accident. Child is born prematurely, has some problems as a result of the accident -7 years later, child with mother’s parents (as litigation guardians, because as a minor he lacks the capacity to sue) assist the son to sue the mother for negligence because he has all these health complications that will persist throughout his life -Mother is insured, and the money will go back to her or her family anyway. -Duty of care when you are driving is owed to anyone on the road and everyone in your car. -Is a foetus a
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

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