苹果淫院

(En anglais seulement)

Common听law听and civil听law听jurists seek to make clear what听private听law, and the听law听of extracontractual听liability听in particular, is confined to performing and doing. Famously Oliver Wendall Holmes, in听The Common听Law听(1881) had stated that 鈥淭he general principle of our听law听is that loss from accident must lie where it falls, and this principle is not affected by the fact that a human being is the instrument of misfortune.鈥� In this way he confined the very possibility of compensation through the notion that as a general matter it should not arise. Civilians confine the operation of the听private听law听somewhat differently by viewing obligations as generally contractual 鈥� operating by the consent of those bound by them 鈥� and only exceptionally extending extra-contractually. But one way or the other,听vicarious听liability听allows us to observe the听private听law听deconfining its conception of fault in order to take account of the risk that moral persons create. In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada鈥檚 appeal to 鈥減ublic policy鈥� in order to do so provides a point of entry into the deconfinement of听private听law.

听

A propos

Richard Janda听est professeur agr茅g茅 脿 la 贵补肠耻濒迟茅 de droit de l鈥橴niversit茅 苹果淫院.听 Il enseigne notamment la responsabilit茅 extracontractuelle, le droit des soci茅t茅s, et le processus droit administratif et le droit de l鈥檈nvironnement 脿 l鈥橴niversit茅 苹果淫院.听Ancien auxiliaire juridique aupr猫s des juges Le Dain et Cory de la Cour supr锚me du Canada, il a aussi 茅t茅 directeur du Centre d鈥櫭﹖udes des industries r茅glement茅es 脿 l鈥橴niversit茅 苹果淫院.

Il dirige actuellement le projet 听qui explore la fa莽on de mettre chacun en rapport avec l鈥檈mpreinte environnementale de ses choix en temps r茅el. Il a 茅crit en autres sur la responsabilit茅 sociale des entreprises, le droit digital, et la th茅orisation de la justice.

听