|
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:37:59 -0400 From: Jason Neyers Subject: Fraser v. Westminer Ltd
Dear Colleagues: Those interested in economic loss, especially relational economic loss, will find the well-written judgment of the NSCA in Fraser v. Westminer Ltd 2003 NSCA 76 interesting both for its application of Cooper v. Hobarts and its interesting facts (which don't resemble any major case that I can recall). From the headnote: The respondent corporations intentionally inflicted economic harm on the promoter of a business venture. The unintended, but foreseeable, result was that the appellants, who were investors in that venture, also suffered economic loss. The appellants sued the respondents for certain intentional torts and negligence. The claims in the intentional torts were dismissed at trial because the judge found the respondents did not intend to injure the appellants. The appellants claim in negligence was dismissed because the judge found that the respondents owed them no duty of care. The appellants appealed only the dismissal of their negligence claim. Issue: Did the judge err in law by finding that the respondents owed the appellants no duty of care? Result: Appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in finding that any duty of care was negated by the policy consideration of indeterminate liability. The judge did err, however, in finding that a prima facie duty of care existed. As argued by the respondents, the judge's dismissal of the action should also be upheld on that basis.
--
<<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»