Notes

LORD MACMILLAN, §13.1.1, [80]: The categories of negligence are never closed.

MCLACHLIN C.J.C., §19.5.2.1, [21]: The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 CanLII 536 (FOREP), [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) [§13.1.1] introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.) [§19.2.2], a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson.

• Negligence has expanded into many different types of interaction between people
• Anns/Cooper says don't need to do a novel DoC analysis if case law establishes a recognized DoC
• Cases of negligence can be and are categorised in different ways.
• Negligence cases are often categorised by the feature that makes them conceptually difficult:

- Difficult types of duty: Misrepresentation (originally), public authorities, Residential Schools (expansion of VL), commercial/social hosts, unborn children, climate change - Difficult types of breach: Public authorities, professionals - Difficult types of damage: Mental injury, pure economic loss - Difficult types of causation/remoteness: Environmental pollution, climate change, cases involving intervening events