Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:06
From: Jason Neyers
Subject: Novel Duty of Care?
The Ontario CA has recently released its decision in Douglas v Kinger.
Apparently, damage to property (by an employee) is a new category of damage that requires a full Cooper v Hobart analysis. The policy-heavy analysis concludes that young and poor employees do not owe duties to their employers not to destroy the employer's property.
For those interested in Lister v Romford, the court concludes that the case is most likely wrongly decided for policy reasons.
I find the case frustrating since it could have been decided the same way, much more cleanly and without any resort to policy, using a contractual or voluntary assumption of risk analysis.
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next