Is there any foreseeability of harm when the oil furnace and oil fill pipe were left in place in 1979?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Berendsen v. Ontario, 2009 ONCA 845 (CanLII):
In Bingley v. Morrison, the majority concluded that there was evidence on which they could find foreseeability of harm when the conduct in question occurred. Simmons J.A. dissented because she agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that harm was not foreseeable in 1979 when the oil furnace and oil fill pipe were left in place.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In what circumstances will Euro-Ex have to prove that it has a reasonable system in place to ensure the safe design, construction and inspection of such ramps? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the duty of care of a mental health care provider to avoid causing foreseeable mental injury? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for damages that extend beyond the normal, foreseeable consequences of a breach? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the evidentiary burden placed on the Respondent? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will the court assume that the parties have placed before it all of the evidence that will be available for trial? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a mechanical exclusion apply to a loss of income due to a failure of a furnace that is not contemplated by the exclusion? (Ontario, Canada)
How have the courts in Taiwan dealt with the issue of parental consent to place a child with the paternal grandmother in Egypt? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the burden of informed consent placed on the patient when advised to undergo the first angiogram? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts dealt with expression in public places? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there a prohibition against bringing motions after a case has been placed on a trial list? (Ontario, Canada)
