Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group R"
Piaseckam13 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | = B.M. v British Columbia (Attorney General) = | + | = ''B.M. v British Columbia (Attorney General)'' = |
This case is an appeal against the trial judge's finding that there was no causal link adequately connecting the negligent behaviour of the RCMP and the damage suffered by the plaintiff, B.M..<br /> | This case is an appeal against the trial judge's finding that there was no causal link adequately connecting the negligent behaviour of the RCMP and the damage suffered by the plaintiff, B.M..<br /> | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
At trial, the appellant brought action against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for negligence, alleging they failed to adequately discharge the private duty they owed her. On April 29, 1996, R.K., the appellant's former common-law spouse, came to her property uninvited with a shotgun. He shot and killed B.M.'s friend, wounded one of B.M.'s daughters, lit the house on fire, and killed himself. B.M. 7 weeks prior to this incident B.M. had issued a complaint against R.K. with the Vancouver RCMP. She alleges they failed in their duty to adequately investigate the incident following her complaint, and are therefore liable in Negligence for the events of April 29, 1996. The trial judge found that, although there was a private duty owed to her by the RCMP that was breached, there could be no finding of negligence because the RCMP did not materially contribute to the events that unfolded. | At trial, the appellant brought action against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for negligence, alleging they failed to adequately discharge the private duty they owed her. On April 29, 1996, R.K., the appellant's former common-law spouse, came to her property uninvited with a shotgun. He shot and killed B.M.'s friend, wounded one of B.M.'s daughters, lit the house on fire, and killed himself. B.M. 7 weeks prior to this incident B.M. had issued a complaint against R.K. with the Vancouver RCMP. She alleges they failed in their duty to adequately investigate the incident following her complaint, and are therefore liable in Negligence for the events of April 29, 1996. The trial judge found that, although there was a private duty owed to her by the RCMP that was breached, there could be no finding of negligence because the RCMP did not materially contribute to the events that unfolded. | ||
| − | |||
== Overview of the Facts at Appeal == | == Overview of the Facts at Appeal == | ||
Latest revision as of 09:23, 27 March 2014
B.M. v British Columbia (Attorney General)
This case is an appeal against the trial judge's finding that there was no causal link adequately connecting the negligent behaviour of the RCMP and the damage suffered by the plaintiff, B.M..
Overview of the Facts at Trial
At trial, the appellant brought action against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for negligence, alleging they failed to adequately discharge the private duty they owed her. On April 29, 1996, R.K., the appellant's former common-law spouse, came to her property uninvited with a shotgun. He shot and killed B.M.'s friend, wounded one of B.M.'s daughters, lit the house on fire, and killed himself. B.M. 7 weeks prior to this incident B.M. had issued a complaint against R.K. with the Vancouver RCMP. She alleges they failed in their duty to adequately investigate the incident following her complaint, and are therefore liable in Negligence for the events of April 29, 1996. The trial judge found that, although there was a private duty owed to her by the RCMP that was breached, there could be no finding of negligence because the RCMP did not materially contribute to the events that unfolded.
Overview of the Facts at Appeal
The case is examined from a number of different legal perspectives:
1. Traditional Natural Law Theory