Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:06

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Novel Duty of Care?

Dear Colleagues:

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.

Happy Reading,

--  
Jason Neyers  
Associate Professor of Law  
Faculty of Law 
University of Western Ontario   
N6A 3K7 
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435 

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>