Products Liability and Canada

[lavender]

I was just recently reading an article about products liability law in Canada, and realized something that surprised me a great deal. Canada does not have strict liability in the products liability realm. Correct me if I'm wrong. What this means is that if a product is defective, then a plaintiff still has to prove negligence on the part of the maker.

In America, if you buy a Krups toaster and it blows up all over your kitchen, if the toaster was defective Krups is liable. You don't have to prove that some worker at Krups fucked up or that this wasn't assembled correctly. It's simply your product is defective, therefore you are guilty and culpable.

Canada doesn't allow this and their primary justification is the protection of corporations from large judgments. I was shocked to see this as a justification. I thought America tried to protect its companies a great deal, but sheesh. Without strict products liability a corporation can get away with a great deal.

Am I wrong about Canadian law here? What are the other justifications for the law? Additionally, was there a big case in Canada that dealt with this - a case where they refused to create strict liability or the case where they did away with it?

 

[Whizz Kid]

What color are your panties? Hmm?

 

[roxanne69]

Why don't you PM Lance about this? I don't think there are too many Canadian lawyers on this board.

 

[lavender]

I don't think he does this kind of law.

I thought maybe there was some huge case against a company where someone won a ridiculous amount of money that a layperson might know about.

 

[islandman]

mmmmmmmmmmm..........layperson......................

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Can we sue in a U.S. court for injuries caused by defective Canadians?

Just checking.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

badically it is an anti stupidity law that was adopted after watching what america goes through.

They watched people in the states take a hair dryer in a shower get fried, and the family sue the company and win millions with blaming the company for the electrocution.

like wise with people eating a bigmac and suing because they got fat.

likewise people smoking then suing cause they got cancer

same with your toaster, the person has to prove that it wqsn't them sticking a fork in it while it was plugged in and in use trying to get an eggo out that cause it to explode.

unfortunately this law doesn't prevent all stupidity lawsuits but it sure does prevent a lot of them

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

badically it is an anti stupidity law that was adopted after watching what america goes through.

They watched people in the states take a hair dryer in a shower get fried, and the family sue the company and win millions with blaming the company for the electrocution.

like wise with people eating a bigmac and suing because they got fat.

likewise people smoking then suing cause they got cancer

same with your toaster, the person has to prove that it wqsn't them sticking a fork in it while it was plugged in and in use trying to get an eggo out that cause it to explode.

unfortunately this law doesn't prevent all stupidity lawsuits but it sure does prevent a lot of them

Get me Johnny Cochrane. I want to sue for Todd's defective spelling.


Gonna win me eleventy-billion dollars. Real dollars. Not looneys.

 

[I'mVan]

Basically it is an anti stupidity law that was adopted after watching what America goes through.

Now that's a wise move. Lavy, not everone wants to live in a liabel society. *shrug*

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

another thing this does also is keeps taxes down, as most cases brought against a company are payed for by the tax payer, and it keeps product prices down from having to pay out millions/billions to some jack off who decided to make toast in the jacuzzi.

 

[sexy-girl]

its interesting but i don't think it counts as a human rights issue so i can't use it in my america stinks thread

 

[Ishmael]

badically it is an anti stupidity law that was adopted after watching what america goes through.

I'm for it!!!!!!

Ishmael

 

[Phoenyx]

In Canada if you make the claim that a product was defective its up to you to prove its bad, not have the maker prove it was good.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

In Canada if you make the claim that a product was defective its up to you to prove its bad, not have the maker prove it was good.

Isn't that what i said just in les words?


why won't anyone post to threads i post in

 

[Gil_Favor]

I was just recently reading an article about products liability law in Canada, and realized something that surprised me a great deal. Canada does not have strict liability in the products liability realm. Correct me if I'm wrong. What this means is that if a product is defective, then a plaintiff still has to prove negligence on the part of the maker.

In America, if you buy a Krups toaster and it blows up all over your kitchen, if the toaster was defective Krups is liable. You don't have to prove that some worker at Krups fucked up or that this wasn't assembled correctly. It's simply your product is defective, therefore you are guilty and culpable.

Canada doesn't allow this and their primary justification is the protection of corporations from large judgments. I was shocked to see this as a justification. I thought America tried to protect its companies a great deal, but sheesh. Without strict products liability a corporation can get away with a great deal.

Am I wrong about Canadian law here? What are the other justifications for the law? Additionally, was there a big case in Canada that dealt with this - a case where they refused to create strict liability or the case where they did away with it?

do you have a life? you seem to worry about the strangest things.

 

[CoolidgEffect]

You mean I could have sued the Toaster manufacture when I electrocuted myself while clawing out that burnt bagel with a fork?

How could my lawyer have over looked that?

I sued the power company for making a dangerous produced and my lawyer got a nice new home. Then I sued the flatware company for making electrically conductive utensils without proper warning labels and my lawyer got a new Mercedes. I’m on the phone right now seeing what he might want for Christmas.

 

[Lancecastor]

Correct me if I'm wrong.


Am I wrong about Canadian law here?

Yes you are wrong. A number of provinces have enacted strict liability/consumer protection legislation.

Some still use common law contract/tort remedies.

As I suggested to you yesterday in another of your threads and via PM, this is pretty standard stuff.

Your material is obviously outdated. Where'd you get this stuff....the Texas Book Repository? I hope you're not paying to get all this inaccuate legal training. Thankfully, you'll be able to sue them in negligence, if you ever learn how! (nyuk nyuk)

Seriously though, F. Lav ...begin in 1893 in England with the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case (it all starts there) and move forward until you get to the current provincial legislation, then feel free to start a thread....by then you'll have a basic knowledge of Canadian P.L. law.

The blurring of contract & tort is a fairly dynamic area of law so once you get caught up, let me know.

Hope this helps

Lance

http://www.carbolicsmokeballco.com/

 

[lavender]

Actually, it was in a law review article I was reading and it caught my eye. That's all. It's not something I'm really researching. I know nothing about Canadian law, as it is not a region I am very interested in.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Lancecastor]

I know nothing about Canadian law

it is not a region I am very interested in.

Agreed you know nothing about Canadian law.

Acknowledged you say are not very interested in Canada.

No interest, no knowledge...yet so many threads!







You're really Ishmael, aren't you?

C'mon....you can tell us!

Lance

 

[Jimi]

Daddy, Daddy! cried the little boy.

Howcum here in New Jersey we have so many junkyards, and in Manhattan, there are so many lawyers?

It's easy, My Son - in the Garden state - we had first choice.