| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen
''Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen'', () 2 S.C.R. 2 ("''Kamloops''") is a leading Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision setting forth the criteria which must be met in order for a plaintiff to make a claim in tort for pure economic loss. In this regard, the ''Kamloops'' case is significant because the SCC adopted the “proximity” test set out in the House of Lords decision of ''Anns v. Merton London Borough Council'', () A.C. 728. ''Kamloops'' is also significant as it articulates the “discoverability principle” in which the commencement of a limitation period is delayed until the plaintiff is aware of the material facts on which a cause of action are discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence. This is later adopted and refined in ''Central Trust Company v. Rafuse'', () 2 S.C.R. 147. Finally, ''Kamloops'' develops the law governing circumstances where a plaintiff can sue the government in tort.
==Facts==
A house in Kamloops, British Columbia had insufficient foundations which were discovered upon inspection by the city. Stop work orders were issued but not enforced. The house was sold to the Nielsens. On discovering the construction deficiencies, the Nielsens sued the city for negligent performance of inspection. The vendor of the house, Hughes, assumed liability as well. 75% of the liability was delegated to Hughes and 25% was given to the city.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|