R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1983 SCC)- grain supplied to SWP was infested w/ rusty beetle making grain unmarketable, and casuing substanital losses to farmers who attemptes to sue SWP for neg’ce – the statute included regulatory provisions for the quality of grain, imposing fines for contamination, but was silent about civil liablty-could a tort in neg;ce be implied?
England- recognises tort of statutory breach if the following can be shown: breach of statute; resulting damages- should ask: was statute created to protect individuals (gives rise ot a tort duty) or the public at large (no tort duty)
America-breach of staue is neg;ce so burden will shift back to D; can substitute statutory standard for reasonable person in standard neg;ce
Canada-breach of staute is evidence of neg’ce, but in this case, b/c bad grain is hard to identify, may not be laible but are still statutorialy liable EXCEPTION: where there is no duty of care at common law, a breach of nonindustrial penal legislation should not affect civil liability unless statute provides for it.
Summary:
1) Civil consequences for violating statues should be subsumed in the law of neg’ce
2) Reject the notion of a nominate tort of statutory breach
3) Proof of a statutory breach can be evidence of negligence
4) Statutory formulation of duty = useful standard of reasonable conduct
3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION
Bux v Slough Metals Ltd. (1974 CA)- – there was a statutory duty to provide worker with goggles that would have prevented the accident
-a statutory duty will not abrogate, supercede, define, or measure a common law duty
– a statutory duty will not eliminate the need for cts to decide whether or not the employer took reasonable care
– must do more than supply goggles as per statue, must also encourage workers to wear them
– where common law and statutory standards differ, must meet the highest one
4. A NOTE ON THE CHARTER
– remedies under 24(1)= express statutory action
XV RECOVERY OF PURE ECONOMIC LOSS IN NEGLIGENCE
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964 HL)- pure economic loss can be recoverable when they are a direct and forseeable result of of the Ps reliance on a negligent misrep. by the D.
Kamploops v Nielson (1990 SCC)- P can recover for pure economic loss from a public authority
BDC Ltd. v Hofstrand Farms Lts. (1986 SCC)- providers of commercial services can be held liable for the pure economic losses of those within sufficient legal proximity – assesment of proximity will be based upon knowledge and reliance
1. Product Quality Claims
Rivtow Marine v Washington Iron Works (1974 SCC) – leading case on recovery of economic losses suffered by nonprivity user of defective products – no need for actual damage befroe liabilty will be imposed¬ – manuf. and distributor w/held knowledge of risk, also knew dates of peak season for buisness, exposing P to risk of losing business -duty to warn commences at earliest opp’ty
2. Relational Economic Loss
CNR V Norsk Pacific Steamship CO. (1992 SCC) -P was the principal user of a bridge that was damaged when the D’s barge collied with it thru neg’ce causing closure for several weeks – P suffered huge economic loss- was it recoverable? YES by adopting the Anns test and principles of Kamploops necessary duty and proximity were est. and valid purposes were served in permitting recovery
Winnipeg Condominium Corp v Bird Cnstruction (1995 SCC)- in the absence of a K’l reln’ship thrid party purchasers were able to recover costs of repair to defects in buiding that had been casued by builders negligence – forseeable that harm could occur b/c of defect.
Be First to Comment