Welcome to the online home of my friend and colleague David Cheifetz. He now resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he is, currently, avoiding the fate of the giant ground sloth.
Some of the material in some of his posts may sound familiar to some of you. He claims he’s merely recycling (which is good) and not plagiarizing himself (which is bad) since he has permission.
For those who care, this blog now has enough followers that Cheifetz will be able to make historically accurate decimation jokes.
August 23, 2015
One upon a time in the west,
A lawyer whose name wasn’t Rex
Said: “When money’s at stake
Then judicial mistake
May not be de minimis non curat lex“.
I forgot to mention the “de minimus” misspelling of “de minimis“ in the earlier part of this post. There’s many more uses of “de minimus“. Let’s blame that on cutting and pasting.
Contribution is a label used to describe the remedy that A has against B to recover some portion of the money A paid to C that C could have recovered from either of A or B, where A’s payment to C reduces the amount of B’s liability to C by some portion of the amount of A’s payment. The traditional justification for allowing A to collect from B is that A’s payment benefits B to the extent that it reduces the amount of B’s liability to C. It is usually said that this benefit to B is a necessary element of a successful contribution claim. However, in some circumstances, an event occurs after the common liability of A and B to C came into existence which has the effect of providing B, but not A, immunity to a claim by C in respect of the loss for which A and B once had the common liability. A pays C after that event occurs, at a time when B is no longer liable for any portion of the amount A pays to C. A then claims contribution from B. B’s defence will be that the contribution claim must fail because of B’s immunity to C’s claim. B asserts that A’s payment to C did not benefit B because B can not be held liable for any portion of that amount, therefore A cannot establish a prerequisite for contribution. Will A’s contribution claim succeed or fail?
because I needed a change from “Broken Record #X”.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you should be able to guess what follows.
You’ll find, below the cut, a brief digression on the meaning of “caused or contributed”, focusing on the meaning of “or” and applying both standard logic and legal logic.
Hinder v. Yellow Cab Company Ltd., 2015 BCSC 2069 is an for damages arising out of injury the plaintiff alleged she sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 16 December, 2010, in Vancouver BC. The action was tried in Vancouver in March 2015. Judgment was rendered in Vancouver on November 2015. The plaintiff succeeded.
If you’re not interested in reading yet another complaint about a trial judge setting out the governing law in a manner that, on its face, is not correct including not referring to the explanation of that law as set out in the recent, governing, SCC decisions, then stop reading now.