...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Environmental Law Reports >Waterway Houseboats Ltd. v. British Columbia
【24h】

Waterway Houseboats Ltd. v. British Columbia

机译：Waterway Houseboats Ltd.V。不列颠哥伦比亚省

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Selection Note: This wide-ranging judgment addresses negligence, contributory negligence, duty of care, causation and standard of care in relation to a replacement bridge project under British Columbia's Water Act that resulted in flooding damages to the plaintiffs' property and business interests.Natural resources-Waters and watercourses - Right to constructworks in watercourse - Public works-In aftermath of flood of creek, engineer appointed by defendant province under Water Users' Communities Act issued approvals for reconstruction of private bridge by its defendant owners, and channel restoration by defendant district, and both those works were completed - Similar flood occurred fifteen years later, causing significant damage to plaintiffs' property and houseboat business - Plaintiffs included V Ltd., W Ltd., and individual houseboat owners (IHOs), and defendants included province, district, and private property owners (Ms) - Plaintiffs brought successful action against defendants as it was found that engineer's words and actions allowed bridge owners to assume that specified 0.6 metre height increase was acceptable height, without further involvement by qualified professional engineer - Engineer fell below standard of care by being influenced by other considerations to influence and failing to make sure that others understood risks and if professional engineer had been engaged by owners as was initially specified as condition of approval, bridge would have built at higher height - Province was not statutorily protected from liability for engineer's negligence -Plaintiffs, district, province, and Ms appealed - Plaintiffs appeal allowed in part; district's appeal allowed in part; province's appeal allowed; Ms' appeal dismissed - Even though judge correctly set out purpose of Act, he did not refer to or give consideration to that purpose when undertaking his proximity analysis - This failure to consider purpose of Act led him to erroneously read private and protective purpose into Act - Judge erred in his approach to proximity by First not considering proximity by way of two-stage analysis described in authorities - Second, judge conflated positions of plaintiffs and regulated parties and relied on dealings between engineer (regulator), district and Ms as sufficient to establish relationship of proximity between province and plaintiff -Net result of this erroneous approach was to create broad private law duty of care owed to individual members of public (plaintiffs) even though purpose of Act was for good of public as whole.
机译：选择注意：这种广泛的判断解决了不列颠哥伦比亚省水法下的替代桥梁项目的疏忽，照顾责任，关怀的责任，导致原告的财产和商业利益造成洪水损失。自然资源 - 水域和水道 - 建设权在WaterCourse的作品 - 公共工程 - 在河流之后，被告省的洪水的工程师在Water用户的社区法案上颁发了被告所有者重建私人桥梁的批准，以及被告区的渠道恢复，并完成了这两项工程的渠道恢复 - 类似的洪水发生了十五年后，造成严重损害原告的财产和船屋业务 - 原告包括v Ltd。，W Ltd。和个人船屋（IHOS）和被告包括省，区和私人物业所有者（MS ） - 原告为被告带来了成功的行动，因为它发现工程师的言行允许桥车主认为指定的0.6米高的高度是可接受的高度，而无需进一步参与合格的专业工程师 - 工程师通过受影响的影响其他考虑因素来影响和未能确保其他人理解风险d如果专业工程师曾经被指定为批准条件，则桥梁将在较高的高度建立 - 省份并未统治着工程师的疏忽 - 普及，省和女士呼吁的责任 - 原告允许部分;地区的上诉部分;省份允许上诉; MS'上诉被解雇 - 即使判断正确阐述法案的目的，他在进行近距离分析时没有提到或考虑这一目的 - 这未能考虑行动的目的，使他错误地阅读私人和保护宗旨 - 通过在当局中描述的两阶段分析，首先不考虑邻近的方法 - 第二，判断原告和受监管缔约方的混合职位，并依赖于工程师（监管机构），区和MS之间的交易的判断，判断近距离建立近距离和原告 - 本犯的近距离的关系的关系，即这种错误的方法是为了创造欠公众（原告）的个人成员的广泛私法法义务，即使行为的宗旨是为了整体公众良好。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号