Please Anns – No More Proximity Soup

Bruce P. Feldthusen
{"title":"Please Anns – No More Proximity Soup","authors":"Bruce P. Feldthusen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3243865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under the Anns/Cooper template “proximity” is nominally the key concept the Canadian courts employ when deciding whether to recognize novel duties of care in negligence. This article reviews Supreme Court decisions over the past 40 years. It exposes “proximity” as a shape-shifter and the two-step Anns/Cooper template as a sham. The author argues that the Anns/Cooper template ought to be abandoned, or that more diligence be applied to the template, particularly to the concept of proximity. A clearer distinction between true proximity – matters of relationship between the parties, and distributive policy-making is required. If both are to be employed, the conditions under which judicial policy-making is appropriate must be specified, and the circumstances when such policy trumps true proximity, if any, articulated. The overwhelming complexity of proximity in actions against the government and statutory authorities can be eliminated simply by following the UK’s leading and refusing to recognize unique public duties of care.","PeriodicalId":255520,"journal":{"name":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3243865","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under the Anns/Cooper template “proximity” is nominally the key concept the Canadian courts employ when deciding whether to recognize novel duties of care in negligence. This article reviews Supreme Court decisions over the past 40 years. It exposes “proximity” as a shape-shifter and the two-step Anns/Cooper template as a sham. The author argues that the Anns/Cooper template ought to be abandoned, or that more diligence be applied to the template, particularly to the concept of proximity. A clearer distinction between true proximity – matters of relationship between the parties, and distributive policy-making is required. If both are to be employed, the conditions under which judicial policy-making is appropriate must be specified, and the circumstances when such policy trumps true proximity, if any, articulated. The overwhelming complexity of proximity in actions against the government and statutory authorities can be eliminated simply by following the UK’s leading and refusing to recognize unique public duties of care.
求你了,安,不要再吃“亲密汤”了
在Anns/Cooper范例中,“接近性”是加拿大法院在决定是否承认过失中新的注意义务时所采用的名义上的关键概念。本文回顾了过去40年来最高法院的判决。它暴露了“接近”是一种变形,而安斯/库珀的两步模板是一种骗局。作者认为,应该放弃Anns/Cooper模板,或者对该模板,特别是对接近性的概念进行更多的研究。需要更明确地区分真正的接近性——政党之间的关系问题,以及分配政策的制定。如果两者都要使用,则必须明确司法决策是适当的条件,并阐明这种政策胜过真正接近的情况(如果有的话)。只要遵循英国的领导,拒绝承认独特的公共照顾义务,就可以消除针对政府和法定当局的行动中过于复杂的接近性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信