Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

duty of care - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Stewar v Pettie :red_flag:
    - - Jordan House :red_flag:
- - - - Policy/Operational distinction
        
        4 factors that help distinguish Policy/Operational (Marchi :red_flag:)
        
        The extent to which the decision is based on objective criteria (the more its based on objective the more its operational)
        
        Level and responsibility of the decision maker (the higher they are the chances are its policy, the more discretion they have more policy)
        
        Nature and extent of budgetary considerations (macro vs micro)
        
        Process by which the decision was made (more ppl involved, more policy)
        
        no liability for a policy decision (Cooper, Kamloops, Just :red_flag:)
        
        concern to keep 3 powers separated
    - - a. Reasonable foreseeability of harm
        
        Was the risk of harm to P reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances?
      - b. Proximity (Cooper :red_flag:)
        
        Whether parties in a sufficiently close and direct r/ship to make it fair and just to impose duty of care on D to look after the P’s interests.
        
        Does D owe a duty to members of public generally or is D also under private law duty vis-à-vis individuals like P
        
        D is a statutory authority --> proximity determined by reference to governing statute
- - - - objective test
    - - misfeasance
        
        reasonable foreseeability of harm may be enough to establish proximity (Childs :red_flag:)
        
        cooper :red_flag:
        
        neighbour principle (Donohue :red_flag:)
      - nonfeasance
        
        3 recognized relationships (Childs :red_flag:)
        
        There is a paternalistic relationship of supervision and control between the defendant and the plaintiff (Ex. parent-child, teacher-student, doctor-patient, prison staff-prisoner, owner of a ship-passenger) (usually when one party is vulnerable and the other has control or power)
        
        When the defendant exercices a public function or engages in a commercial enterprise that includes implied responsibilities to the public at large
        
        The defendant intentionally invites a third party (or a guest) to a risk they created or control (:red_flag: Crocker, Horsley) (there is a reasonable expectation/reliance)
      - consider policy reasons
        
        representations
        
        interests at stake
        
        reliance
        
        expectations