Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group R"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= B.M. v British Columbia (Attorney General) = | = B.M. v British Columbia (Attorney General) = | ||
| − | == | + | == 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. | :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. | ||
Revision as of 12:20, 7 February 2014
B.M. v British Columbia (Attorney General)
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.
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/Natural_Law
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/Positivism
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/Separation_Thesis
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/System_Of_Rights
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/Liberty-Paternalism
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/Law_As_Efficiency
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/Feminist_Jurisprudence
Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_R/Critical_Legal_Studies_Critical_Race_Theory