Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Negligence - From: 1997 To: 1997

This page lists 48 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd v Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd [1997] 3 SCR 1210
1997

McLachlin J (minority)
Commonwealth, Negligence
(Supreme Court of Canada) Saint John Shipbuilding Limited (SJSL) constructed an oil rig for Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Limited (BVHB) which was to conduct drilling operations off the east coast of Canada. A heat trace system was required in order to prepare the rig for winter operations. The purpose of a heat trace system was to prevent the rig's pipes or "mud lines" from freezing. The heat trace system which was installed was supplied by Raychem Canada Limited and Raychem Corporation (Raychem). This system was chosen after consultation with Raychem representatives because it had a self-regulating heater. Raychem's heat trace system used Thermaclad wrap to keep moisture from the insulation and heat trace wire. The specification for the Raychem heat trace system required the installation of a ground fault circuit breaker system, the purpose of which was to cut off the power in the event of an electrical fault, to prevent arcing of the heat trace wire. The ground fault circuit breaker system initially installed by SJSL was unsuitable, and a functioning system was not installed on the rig until after the incident which formed the basis of the case. During the drilling of an exploratory well a fire broke out on the oil rig, causing damage to cables.
In a subsequent litigation, the trial judge held inter alia that SJSL was liable in tort for breach of duty to warn of the inflammability of Thermaclad. He also held that the defendant Raychem was liable in tort for breach of its duty to warn. When the case reached the Supreme Court of Canada, it was held by a majority that SJSL's appeal with regard to the duty to warn should be allowed. The majority of the court held that BVHB was not entitled to claim against SJSL on the basis of the tort duty to warn, by reason of provisions of the contract between them. The majority did not however disagree with what was said by the minority of the court about the duty to warn.
The opinion of the minority was delivered by McLachlin J., who said at: "SJSL argues that in order for a duty to warn to arise, there must be an 'informational imbalance' between the manufacturer or supplier and the party who is owed the warning. SJSL submits that the plaintiff BVHB knew as much about the inflammability of the Thermaclad as it did.
The law may be simply stated. Manufacturers and suppliers are required to warn all those who may reasonably be affected by potentially dangerous products: Lambert v Lastoplex Chemicals Co [1972] S.C.R. 569, and Hollis v Dow Corning Corp. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634. This duty extends even to those persons who are not party to the contract of sale: Rivtow Marine Ltd v Washington Iron Works [1974] S.C.R. 1189. The potential user must be reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer or supplier - manufacturers and suppliers (including a builder-supplier like SJSL) do not have the duty to warn the entire world about every danger that can result from improper use of their product.
The plaintiff BVHB was clearly within the class of persons that SJSL and Raychem ought to have known might reasonably be affected by the use of Thermaclad. SJSL was in a contractual relationship with BVHB, and Raychem had directly approached BVHB's predecessor [...] to encourage the use of its products in the construction of the rig.
The defendant SJSL submits that there is an additional requirement for a duty to warn: a knowledge imbalance between the manufacturer or supplier and the consumer. It goes on to argue that since BVHB knew about the inflammability of Thermaclad no duty to warn arose. The Court of Appeal held that knowledge may be a defence, but only where the plaintiff can be viewed as accepting the risk (volenti non fit iniuria).
I agree with the Court of Appeal that knowledge that there may be a risk in some circumstances does not negate a duty to warn. Liability for failure to warn is based not merely on a knowledge imbalance. If that were so every person with knowledge would be under a duty to warn. It is based primarily on the manufacture or supply of products intended for the use of others and the reliance that consumers reasonably place on the manufacturer and supplier. Unless the consumer's knowledge negates reasonable reliance, the manufacturer or supplier remains liable. This occurs where the consumer has so much knowledge that a reasonable person would conclude that the consumer fully appreciated and willingly assumed the risk posed by use of the product, making the maxim volenti non fit iniuria applicable: Lambert, supra.
The evidence establishes that the plaintiff BVHB knew that Thermaclad would burn under some circumstances. The defendants SJSL and Raychem, however, had much more detailed knowledge of the specific inflammability characteristics of the Thermaclad. Raychem gained this knowledge through its own testing as manufacturer. SJSL gained it through its request to Raychem for information on Thermaclad's inflammability. BVHB did not have the degree of knowledge necessary to negate reliance on SJSL and Raychem. SJSL and Raychem did not demonstrate that BVHB accepted the risk of using Thermaclad. It follows that both SJSL and Raychem owed BVHB a duty to warn [...]."
1 Citers


 
James Kane Birrell v Moulton Construction Company James George Scott and Zurich International (Uk) Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 766
13 Jan 1997
CA

Road Traffic, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Narmanie Breeze v Louis Daly [1997] EWCA Civ 860
28 Jan 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Slater and Co (a Firm) v Sheil and others [1997] EWCA Civ 922
4 Feb 1997
CA
Lord Justice Nourse Mr. Justice Cazalet
Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Dixon v Morris [1997] EWCA Civ 915
4 Feb 1997
CA

Road Traffic, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Jane Powell By John Ernest Powell, Her Father and Next Friend v Derek Gray [1997] EWCA Civ 947
6 Feb 1997
CA

Road Traffic, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Mccord v Swansea City Afc Ltd and Another Times, 11 February 1997
11 Feb 1997
QBD

Negligence
Liability for soccer injury; recklessness not required to be shown after clear foul outside laws of game, no volens to such acts.

 
Peach Publishing Limited v Slater and Co (a Firm) and Slater and Co (a Firm) v Sheil; Gorden and Cheetham [1997] EWCA Civ 1012
13 Feb 1997
CA

Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Bralsford v Conoco Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 1017
14 Feb 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence
The employers appealed against a finding of negligence causing the plaintiff personal injury. The plaintiff lorry driver for the defendants, had his boot lace caught as he was on top of the tanker. He fell, but was left suspended.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dilwyn Edmunds v Rhymney Valley District Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1019
14 Feb 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Richard John Hopkins and Alice Elizabeth Hopkins v National Rivers Authority [1997] EWCA Civ 1040
18 Feb 1997
CA

Transport, Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 W v Home Office; CA 19-Feb-1997 - Times, 14 March 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1052
 
Nelson Holdings Ltd v British Gas Plc and Others Times, 07 March 1997
7 Mar 1997
QBD

Negligence
Fire services are not liable in negligence to property owners. When attending a fire, they exercised a power not a duty.

 
Capital and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004; [1997] EWCA Civ 3091; [1997] 2 LLR 161; [1997] 2 All ER 865; [1997] 3 WLR 331
14 Mar 1997
CA
Stuart-Smith, Potter, Judge LJ
Negligence

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Digital Equipment Company Limited v Hampshire County Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1247
14 Mar 1997
CA

Negligence
Consolidation of cases involving question of what duty was owed by a fire service to the owners of buildings.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Lambert v West Devon Borough Council Times, 27 March 1997; Gazette, 19 March 1997
19 Mar 1997
QBD

Negligence, Local Government
A Local Authority officer granting permissions apparently within own powers binds the authority, and the Local Authority was liable in negligence for an error of a building control officer giving planning advice.

 
Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council; Etc Times, 20 March 1997; [1997] QB 1004; [1997] 3 WLR 342
20 Mar 1997
CA
Stuart Smith LJ
Negligence, Local Government
Three cases were brought against fire services after what were said to be negligent responses to call outs. On one, the fire brigade was called to a fire at office premises in Hampshire. The fire triggered the operation of a heat-activated sprinkler system, but on arrival a fire brigade officer gave instructions for the sprinkler system to be shut down. This led to the fire rapidly spreading out of control and the premises were destroyed. If the sprinkler system had been left on and the fire brigade had otherwise acted as it did to combat the fire, the premises would not have been destroyed. On another, the fire brigade was called to the scene of some fires on waste land near to the claimants' industrial premises in London. When the fire brigade arrived the fires had already been extinguished. After checking that there was no evidence of any continuing danger the fire brigade left. Later a fire broke out at the claimants' premises. In the last case, the fire brigade was called to a fire at a chapel in Yorkshire. The water hydrants near the premises either failed to work or the officers were unable for a long time to locate them, and so water had to be fetched from a dam half a mile away. It should have been possible to contain the fire, but as a result of the water shortage the whole building was destroyed. Held: The court upheld the claim against Hampshire, but dismissed the other two.
Under the 1947 Act, the fire authorities had a stautory duty to secure the services for their area of a fire brigade and equipment, such as necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements, and to take all reasonable measures to ensure that an adequate supply of water was available for use in case of fire.
The fire brigade may be liable in negligence for consequences of a fire if their actions made a fire worse despite the general rule against such liability. "In our judgment the fire brigade are not under a common law duty to answer the call for help, and are not under a duty to take care to do so. If, therefore, they fail to turn up, or fail to turn up in time, because they have carelessly misunderstood the message, got lost on the way or run into a tree, they are not liable."
Fire Services Act 1947
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Colin Facey Boats Limited v A Pank and Sons Limited and D J Whitmarsh; CA 21-Mar-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 1299

 
 Mansfield and Another v Weetabix Limited and Another; CA 26-Mar-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 1352; [1998] 1 WLR 1263
 
Gorman v Carter [1997] EWCA Civ 1380
11 Apr 1997
CA

Negligence, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Joakim; Joakim v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and North Middlesex Hospital Trust [1997] EWCA Civ 1386
14 Apr 1997
CA

Police, Negligence, Personal Injury

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Laceys Footwear (Wholesale) Ltd v Bowler International Freight Ltd and Another; CA 18-Apr-1997 - Times, 12 May 1997; [1997] 2 LL Rep 369; [1997] EWCA Civ 1454
 
Rae (Agnes) v Glasgow City Council and Another Times, 22 April 1997
22 Apr 1997
OHCS

Environment, Employment, Health and Safety, Negligence
An employer may be liable for damages for passive smoking if the claim is pleaded correctly.
Offices Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 7

 
Patricia Ann Knight v Dorset County Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1496
23 Apr 1997
CA

Negligence, Education

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sylvia Bourne v British Telecommunications Plc [1997] EWCA Civ 1634
7 May 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Gibbins v Galliford and Sons Limited; Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Iderend Holdings (Formerly Rediguard Limited) [1997] EWCA Civ 1835
11 Jun 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Powell and Another v Boldaz and others [1997] EWCA Civ 2002; [1997] 39 BMLR 35; [1998] Lloyds Rep Med 116
1 Jul 1997
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ, Morritt LJ and Shiemann LJ
Health Professions, Negligence, Torts - Other
The question was whether doctors owed a duty of care to the parents of their deceased son in relation to events which occurred after death when the parents were allegedly given misleading or false information by doctors. Held: An unlawful act actionable at the suit of the claimant was a necessary ingredient of unlawful means conspiracy.
No duty of care was owed because the element of proximity was lacking. "It was to him [the child] that the defendants owed a duty of care. The discharge of that duty in the case of a young child will often involve giving advice and instruction to the parents so that they can administer the appropriate medication, observe relevant symptoms and seek further medical assistance if need be. In giving such advice, the doctor obviously owes a duty to be careful. But the duty is owed to the child, not to the parents." and "After the death, the defendants may owe the plaintiffs a duty of care; but this depends upon whether they are called upon, or undertake, to treat them as patients."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Waters v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1997] EWCA Civ 2012
3 Jul 1997
CA

Police, Discrimination, Negligence

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 W v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; CA 21-Jul-1997 - Times, 21 July 1997
 
OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport Times, 22 July 1997; [1997] 3 All ER 397
22 Jul 1997
QBD
May J
Negligence
Eight children with a teacher and two instructors set off on a canoeing trip but did not return. They got into difficulties at sea. Two became separated from the rest. The canoes capsized and sank. Some tried to swim ashore. Two more members became separated. They were all eventually rescued between 5.30 and 6.40 pm, but four of the children died and the other members of the party suffered severe hypothermia and shock. Proceedings were brought against the organisers of the trip, who sought redress against the Secretary of State as the minister responsible for HM Coastguard. The defendant sought a strike out of the claim. Held: The claim was struck out. A coastguard owed no duty of care to those in distress even in giving a negligent mis-direction to non-employees. The claimant relied on an internal manual and orders intended and designed to ensure that the coastguard discharged its responsibilities properly, efficiently and effectively. It was said that the coastguard had encouraged an expectation in the minds of the public that they would respond promptly and appropriately to marine emergencies. It had thereby assumed responsibilities to the public for the execution of search and rescue missions in coastal waters.
It was submitted that a duty of care arose from the expectation that the coast guard would act carefully, the expectation being created by ministerial pronouncement, published procedures and a common knowledge that the coast guard would act when it knows of an emergency at sea. These submissions were rejected. They strained what Lord Hoffmann had said in Stovin v Wise beyond breaking point.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Post Office v Endean [1997] EWCA Civ 2245
30 Jul 1997
CA

Road Traffic, Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tarrant v Ramage and Others; QBD 31-Jul-1997 - Times, 31 July 1997; Gazette, 24 September 1997
 
Elf Enterprise Caledonia Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others
2 Sep 1997
SCS

Negligence

[ Bailii (2) ] - [ Bailii (2) ] - [ Bailii (3) ] - [ Bailii (4) ] - [ Baiii (5) ] - [ Bailii (6) ]
 
Elf Caledonia Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Northern Industrial and Marine Services Co Ltd and British Telecommunications Plc and Wood Group Engineering Contractors Ltd and Eastman Christensen Ltd and Kelvin International Services Ltd and Sten [1997] ScotCS 1
2 Sep 1997
SCS
Lord Caplan
Scotland, Negligence

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance [1997] EWCA Civ 2441; [1998] PIQR 44
8 Oct 1997
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Rober Walker LJ
Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence
A driver who had crossed through a green traffic light but had collided with an ambulance was 60 per cent contributorily negligent. He had failed to hear the ambulance, had failed to see it, and had ignored unusal driving of other motorists. Held: "In my judgment, the general approach of the judge below was entirely correct. He rightly identified the duty upon the defendants' driver crossing this junction against the red light, as a high or heavy one, but equally rightly he recognised a duty of care upon the plaintiff beyond that of merely taking reasonable steps to avoid colliding with any vehicle crossing on red which he happened to see or otherwise be aware of. Rejecting, as I do, the application here of what is suggested to be the absolute rule in favour of traffic crossing a junction on green established in Joseph Eva Ltd v Reeves, it follows that, in my judgment, the appellant's argument that there was no scope here for any finding of contributory negligence fails." The court emphasised that the nature of the duty owed by drivers crossing on green, in circumstances where emergency vehicles are crossing on red, is illuminated by regulation 33(2) of the 1994 Regulations. Simon Brown LJ also referred to rule 76 of the Highway Code providing: "Look and listen for ambulances…or other emergency vehicles with flashing blue lights or sirens. Make room for them to pass (if necessary by moving to the side of the road and stopping) but do not endanger other road users."
Traffic Signs And General Directions Order 1994 (1994 No 1519)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Arnold Heyes v Pilkington Glass Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 2617
31 Oct 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence
Crane driver - "Vibration Induced White Finger".
[ Bailii ]
 
Andrew Bingham v Simon Lee Fuller [1997] EWCA Civ 2641
5 Nov 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mullin v Richards and Birmingham City Council; CA 6-Nov-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 2662; [1998] 1 All ER 920; [1998] 1 WLR 1304

 
 Ratcliff v G R McConnell and others; CA 7-Nov-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 2679; [1999] 1 WLR 670
 
Reeves (Joint Administratrix of the Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis Times, 20 November 1997; Gazette, 03 December 1997; (1998) 41 BMLR 54; [1998] 2 All ER 381; [1999] QB 169; [1998] 2 WLR 401; [1997] EWCA Civ 2686
10 Nov 1997
CA

Police, Negligence
The fact that the deceased committed suicide whilst in custody does not necessarily absolve the police of blame if the deceased was a known suicide risk.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wills v Entwistle and Spruce [1997] EWCA Civ 2701
12 Nov 1997
CA
Roch, Thorpe, Buxton LJJ
Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence
The claimant was a passenger in a car driven by the first defendant. He was injured when the driver turned right at traffic lights, in front of a van approaching. The traffic lights were at green for both vehicles. The question was as to the possible liability of the driver of the van. The judge had found that the first defendant was unlikely to have indicated to turn right, but that the van had accelerated. Had the driver been paying proper attention he could have avoided the accident, and the van driver had been found to be 20% responsible. Held: There had been no evidence before the judge to found his assessment that thevan had not already entered the junction by the time the first defendant turned across his path. There was therefore no basis for finding contributory negligence on the van driver's part, and the van driver's appeal succeeded.
[ Bailii ]
 
Widdowson (By her Father and Next Friend Widdowson) v Newgate Meat Corporation Scullion and Enaas Gazette, 10 December 1997; Times, 04 December 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2763
19 Nov 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic
Res ipsa loquitur might be used to establish fault where the driver drove into a pedestrian on a carriageway and had no explanation for the accident.
[ Bailii ]
 
William Lyon v Serco-Ial Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 2849
27 Nov 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Karl Andrew Whyte v Redland Aggregates Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 2842
27 Nov 1997
CA
Henry LJ
Negligence, Personal Injury
The appellant dived into a disused gravel pit and struck his head on an obstruction on the floor of the pit. The Court dismissed his appeal that he was not entitled to damages. Held: "In my judgment, the occupier of land containing or bordered by the river, the seashore, the pond or the gravel pit, does not have to warn of uneven surfaces below the water. Such surfaces are by their nature quite likely to be uneven. Diving where you cannot see the bottom clearly enough to know that it is safe to dive is dangerous unless you have made sure, by reconnaissance or otherwise, that the diving is safe ie. that there is adequate depth at the place where you choose to dive. In those circumstances, the dangers of there being an uneven surface in an area where you cannot plainly see the bottom are too plain to require a specific warning and, accordingly, there is no such duty to warn (see Lord Shaw in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44, 60. There was no trap here on the judge's finding. There was just an uneven surface, as one would expect to find in a disused gravel pit."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Howells v Trefigin Oil and Trefigin Quarries Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 2874
2 Dec 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Barry James Melleney (a Minor By her Father and Next Friend David William Melleney) v Anthony Arthur Wainwright [1997] EWCA Civ 2884
3 Dec 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Clunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority Gazette, 14 January 1998; Times, 10 December 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2918; [1998] 3 All ER 180; [1998] QB 978
5 Dec 1997
CA
Beldam LJ
Torts - Other, Negligence
The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis that he would not have killed anyone but for negligence on the part of the authority. Held: The claim was struck out. A convicted criminal may not sue the Health Authority for failing to take care of him and allowing the commission of an offence. It would be against public policy to allow such a claim. The breach by a local health authority of the duty imposed by section 117 does not of itself give rise to a cause of action for damages for breach of statutory duty on the part of the patient concerned.
Beldam LJ explained the plaintiff's counsel's argument: "[The plaintiff's] relationship with the defendant was that of doctor and patient, which clearly gives rise to a duty of care. Even if that was not the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the obligations imposed under the Mental Health Act 1983 created duties owed by the defendant to a limited class, i.e. mental health patients, whom Parliament must have intended should have a right to sue for breach of that duty. Failing that, the obligations imposed by Parliament on the defendant gave rise to a duty of care owed to him at common law." and answered: that "[t]he court ought not to allow itself to be made an instrument to enforce obligations alleged to arise out of the plaintiff's own criminal act"
As to whether a private law claim for damages might arise: "Under section 117(2) the authorities named are required to co-operate with voluntary organisations in setting up a system which provides after-care services for patients who have been discharged from hospital after treatment for mental disorder. The services have to be made available to such persons until 'the person concerned is no longer in need of such services.' Undoubtedly the section is designed to promote the social welfare of a particular class of persons and to ensure that the services required are made available to individual members of the class. However section 124 provides the Secretary of State with default powers if he is of the opinion 'on complaint or otherwise' that the functions conferred or imposed under the Act have not been carried out. Thus the primary method of enforcement of the obligations under section 117 is by complaint to the Secretary of State. No doubt, too, a decision by the district health authority or the local social services authority under the section is liable to judicial review at the instance of a patient: see Reg. v. Ealing District Health Authority, Ex parte Fox [1993] 1 W.L.R. 373. The character of the duties created seem to us closely analogous to those described by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in X (Minors) v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633, 747 as requiring: 'exceptionally clear statutory language to show a parliamentary intention that those responsible for carrying out these difficult functions should be liable in damages if, on subsequent investigation with the benefit of hindsight, it was shown that they had reached an erroneous conclusion and therefore failed to discharge their statutory duties.'
In our view the wording of the section is not apposite to create a private law cause of action for failure to carry out the duties under the statute."
Mental Health Act 1983 117
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lewis v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1145; 43 BCLR (3d) 154; 1997 CanLII 304 (SCC); 153 DLR (4th) 594; [1998] 5 WWR 732
11 Dec 1997

Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ
Vicarious Liability, Commonwealth, Negligence
(Supreme Court of Canada) Torts - Negligence - Highways - Crown liability - Provincial ministry engaging independent contractor to remove rocks from cliff face - Contractor performing work negligently, leaving rocks protruding from cliff face - Driver fatally injured when one of rocks fell from cliff face and crashed through his windshield - Whether provincial ministry absolved from liability for contractor’s negligence.
Cory J said that a common law duty of care "does not usually demand compliance with a specific obligation. It is only when an act is undertaken by a party that a general duty arises to perform the act with reasonable care."
1 Citers

[ Canlii ] - [ Canlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.