Some people look at things as they are ...
Here's how things could be, and how they are in a country that gives a shit.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1989/vol1/html/1989scr1_0705.html(Supreme Court of Canada, 1989)
Civil liability -- Municipality -- Firefighting -- Malfunction of and failure to maintain hydrants -- Fault <=negligence> by firefighters in the performance of their duties -- <u>Whether city liable for damage caused by fire</u> -- Whether civil law applies to a municipality regarding determination of its liability for damage caused by fire ...
<the language is a little odd because the case was decided under the Civil Code of Québec, which was even odder in English 15 years ago than it is now>
A client's negligence led to a fire that damaged appellants' hotel complex in the city of Beauport. As soon as they arrived, the firefighters sprayed water from the fire truck onto the fire, but the water soon ran out owing to the impossibility of connecting with the hydrants. The latter, which were difficult to reach and covered with snow, were unusable because they were frozen or broken. It was not until some forty minutes later that water was finally obtained from the hydrants. The appellants brought an action for damages against the person who had set the fire and the respondent <municipality>, alleging fault by the latter in fighting the fire, namely that its equipment had not been maintained and did not function properly, as well as fault by its employees in the performance of their duties. ...
Held ... Under the "public" common law established in the Anns and City of Kamloops cases, a municipality cannot be held responsible for its policy decisions. (Policy decisions are decisions of a political nature such as the initial decision to exercise the power to establish a service.) A municipality, however, which acts within the operational sphere of its discretionary powers -- i.e., within the practical execution of its policy decision -- is subject to the private law standards of conduct. ...
The respondent could have, as a matter of policy, established some scheme of inspection and repair. The failure to make such a policy decision, however, does not allow the respondent to escape the application of the private law. Absent a policy decision to which the omission alleged to have caused damage can be attributed, the inspection and repair of the fire hydrants must be taken to be in the operational sphere, since they are the practical execution of the respondent's policy decision to establish the water system and to allocate personnel and money to maintain the system. The acts and omissions of respondent's firefighters, too, should be characterized as operational in nature. The responsibility of the respondent, therefore, falls to be determined by <the Civil Code> and the trial judge's finding that the respondent was at fault ... was correct.
The city had to pay up.
The English common law -- this link is outdated, so you need to put it in google's search box and find the cached version:
http://www.swarb.co.uk/c/HL/1977Anns_Merton.html+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (House of Lords, i.e. final appellate court, 1977)
1. Whether a local authority is under any duty of care towards owners or occupiers of any such houses as regards inspection during the building process. ...
Conclusion.
I would hold:
... 3. that the defendant council would not be guilty of a breach of duty in not carrying out inspection of the foundations of the block unless it were shown
(a) not properly to have exercised its discretion as to the making of inspections, and
(b) to have failed to exercise reasonable care in its acts or omissions to secure that the byelaws applicable to the foundations of the block were complied with;
4. that the defendant council would be liable to the respondents for breach of duty if it were proved that its inspector, having assumed the duty of inspecting the foundations, and acting otherwise than in the bona fide exercise of any discretion under the statute, did not exercise reasonable care to ensure that the byelaws applicable to the foundations were complied with; ...
This one's a report of a Toronto
cause célèbre; Jane Doe disclosed her identity after the trial, I believe.
http://www.fafia-afai.org/Bplus5/natFAFIAreport012103.docIn 1986, Jane Doe was sexually assaulted in her apartment by a serial rapist. She was his fifth victim. No warning was issued by the Metro Toronto Police Force even though they were aware of the existence of the rapist, knew which type of women he was likely to attack, and knew the area in which his attacks were occurring.
Jane Doe sued the police for negligence for their failure to warn women about the rapist. On July 3, 1998, 12 years after the rape, judgment was issued against the Police Force.
In the judgment, Justice MacFarland stated that the “the police failed utterly in their duty to protect these women who were raped and the plaintiff in particular from the serial rapist the police knew to be in their midst, by failing to warn so that they may have had the opportunity to take steps to protect themselves.” She also found that “the conduct of this investigation and the failure to warn in particular, was motivated and informed by the adherence to rape myths as well as sexist stereotypical reasoning about rape, about women and about women who are raped. The plaintiff therefore has been discriminated against by reason of her gender and as the result the plaintiff's rights to equal protection and equal benefit of the law were compromised.” The Court also found that Jane Doe’s right to security of the person was violated “by subjecting her to the very real risk of attack by a serial rapist - a risk of which they were aware but about which they quite deliberately failed to inform the plaintiff”.
Jane Doe v. Toronto (Metropolitan) Commissioners of Police, <1998> O.J. No. 2681 (Gen. Div.)
The next case does not seem to have come to trial yet; the facts are reported here:
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/bonnie_mooney_nov2103.htmlOn an April evening in 1996, near a remote lake in British Columbia's Interior, Bonnie Mooney's estranged husband came looking for her with a sawed-off shotgun. In the space of a few minutes, Ms. Mooney's life changed for good. Now she wants the Mounties to pay.
Ms. Mooney's common-law husband, Roland Kruska, who had been stalking her for weeks, broke into the house, killed her best friend, shot her 12-year-old daughter, set fire to the house, then killed himself. ...
and the following is from the factum of the Vancouver Rape Relief Society, which has intervener status:
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/Factum_Intervener5.pdfISSUES ON APPEAL
3. What test of causation applies to claims for negligence brought against police for inadequate response to complaints of male violence against women?
4. Do police owe a duty of care to women who complain of male violence and, if so, what is the applicable standard of care?
5. What role, if any, does the doctrine of contributory negligence play in a claim for negligent police response to a complaint of male violence against women?
... 50. Public authorities, including police authorities, are generally held to civil account for their negligent acts. In such cases, liability is imposed on the basis of policy and principle.
51. As a matter of principle, foreseeability of risk must coexist with a special relationship of proximity between a public official and an individual member of society for a private law duty of care to arise.
52. When an individual woman is, or should be, known by police to be part of a narrow and distinct group of potential victims of crimes of male violence a special relationship of proximity exists between them such that a duty of care on the part of police is established. In these circumstances, the police have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the woman from the foreseeable risk of repeated crimes of male violence.
53. In VRR's submission, a woman who complains of male violence and turns to police for assistance is obviously someone known by them to be a potential victim of crime. That potential typically actuates the complaint.
54. In VRR's submission, a woman who complains to police of male violence is also someone who reasonably expects them to fulfil their duty of protection. ...
So all in all, y'see, the way things are in some places is just the way things are in some places. They're different in other places. The way things are in any place really didn't come down to any of us on stone tablets.
Many people would say that things are better, in this respect, in the UK and Canada.
Other people are happy to sit on their bums and say "the police have no duty to protect me!! I wanna gun!!"
Me, I'd be out there trying to defeat the REPUBLICANS who dominate the Michigan legislature that passed the law that gives public authorities the immunity that they are not given in Canada and the UK.
But that's just me.
Oh, p.s.
How would that woman in the Michigan case having a firearm have saved her life? 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
