Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:53

From: John Murphy

Subject: Economic Torts

Jason (and anyone else who cares):

I don't what Rob says provides an easier or more convenient explanation of Cook v Lewis.

If you read what Rob said -- and I agree with it -- he stated very clearly that there must be a common course of action; and in his example he talked about A and B agreeing looking for gas leaks with lighted matches.

What they agreed on, critically, is something that of itself generates the risk that -- Rob would doubtless say -- ultimately causes an infringement of the plaintiff's rights. Simply going hunting in the woods (with or without a friend) isn't in the same league. But A pulling a trigger because he sees something move (albeit it at the same time that B pulls a trigger for the same reason) is different. But they didn't agree to shoot at the same time. As such the activity that causes the injury is not a concerted action in the same way as dangerously hunting gas leaks with lighted matches is.

A pulls the trigger without B egging him/her on (or anything like that or of equivalent effect). In Rob's description of Brooke v Boole, the concerted action involves two parties that "agree to check a gas pipe for leaks with action".

Walking in the woods with a rifle and friend (who is doing the same) isn't in the same league, nor is causatively linked in the same way.

J

PS I expecting Rob to disagree with us both and prove us both wrong ... so no change there!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:31:39 -0500

Subject: ODG: Economic Torts

If two people go hunting together, is A responsible for the tort of B in negligently shooting C? (Is there therefore an easier explanation for Cook v Lewis?) I don't know if it just me but Brooke v Boole seems a little wide/too easy to make out.

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