Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
That bill never passed.
|
What bill are you speaking of?
Canadian courts have found a duty of care to exist at common law as between a commercial host (bar, restaurant, hotel, etc) and their patrons. That same duty of care has not exactly been extended to social hosts, though, especially in the case of duties owed to third-parties (i.e., other users of the highway and members of the public).
See, for example,
Stewart v. Pettie, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 131 (a Supreme Court decision on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta):
A duty of care exists between alcohol‑serving establishments and their patrons who are unable to look after themselves after becoming intoxicated. The establishment may be required to prevent an intoxicated patron from driving where it is apparent that he or she intends to drive. A duty is also owed to third parties who might reasonably be expected to come into contact with the intoxicated patron, and to whom that patron may pose some risk. A sufficient degree of proximity existed here between the commercial host and the injured passenger giving rise to a duty of care between them. The fact that she was in the vehicle driven by the patron rather than the passenger or driver of another vehicle was irrelevant for purposes of duty of care. The duty of care arose because she was a member of a class of persons who could be expected to be on the highway. It is this class of persons to whom the duty is owed.