Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:24:15 -0600

From: Ken Cooper-Stephenson

Subject: More on maternal torts in Alberta

Jason,

The degree of additional intrusion is always a balance, and if it were thought intrusive (which almost no-one thinks it is). there is always s. 1 of the Charter. The judgments in Dobson anticipate and even suggest this exception; they deny it for other reasons than that it would be intrusive as a matter of social policy. Taking care while driving, since so many other persons are at risk, including the mother herself, imposes almost no extra onus on the woman because she is pregnant. There is really no extra care required by imposing liability to the fetus.

Ken Cooper-Stephenson

------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jason Neyers
To: Vaughan Black
Subject: Re: ODG: more on maternal torts in Alberta
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:42:01 -0500

Why doesn't imposing liability via statute infringe the Constitutional interests in liberty and autonomy that were said (at least by the concurring judgment) to justify removing liability from the mother at common law? It would seem strange that one could impose liability in public law (where the Charter applies directly), when one could not do so in private law (where the Charter is said to apply only indirectly).

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