平特五不中

Common听law听and civil听law听jurists seek to make clear what听private听law, and the听law听of extracontractual听liability听in particular, is confined to performing and doing. Famously Oliver Wendall Holmes, in听The Common听Law听(1881) had stated that 鈥淭he general principle of our听law听is that loss from accident must lie where it falls, and this principle is not affected by the fact that a human being is the instrument of misfortune.鈥� In this way he confined the very possibility of compensation through the notion that as a general matter it should not arise. Civilians confine the operation of the听private听law听somewhat differently by viewing obligations as generally contractual 鈥� operating by the consent of those bound by them 鈥� and only exceptionally extending extra-contractually. But one way or the other,听vicarious听liability听allows us to observe the听private听law听deconfining its conception of fault in order to take account of the risk that moral persons create. In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada鈥檚 appeal to 鈥減ublic policy鈥� in order to do so provides a point of entry into the deconfinement of听private听law.

听

About听

Richard Janda is Associate Professor at the Faculty of听Law, 平特五不中.听 He teaches extracontractual obligations, business associations, administrative process and environmental听law. A former clerk to Justices Le Dain and Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada, he was also Director of the Center for the Study of Regulated Industries at 平特五不中. He is currently leading the .

听