Négligence et obligation de diligence: 40 ans d'évolution (Negligence and The Duty of Care: 40 years of Evolution)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La notion de l'obligation de diligence a grandement evolue au fil des 40 dernieres annees. Malgre ses origines incertaines, cet element essentiel du delit de negligence s'est modifie a tel point qu'il est devenu la pierre d'angle de toute analyse de la responsabilite pour negligence. Le present article s'interesse au developpement de cette notion devant la Cour supreme du Canada entre les annees 1966 et 2006. Pour la Cour, le grand defi a ete de faconner une formule analytique appropriee pour determiner si, dans un cas donne, une obligation de diligence doit etre retenue. Or, cette tâche s'est averee de des plus difficiles. L'approche de la Cour est etudiee selon trois periodes: la premiere correspond a peu pres aux decennies 1960-1970 et est marquee par l'influence de l'affaire Donoghue c Stevenson. La seconde, soit les annees 1980-1990, permet de tracer le cheminement du critere a deux volets enonce dans l'arret Anns c Merton London Borough Council jusqu'au point culminant que represente le jugement de la Cour supreme dans Cooper c Hobart en 2001. Enfin, la derniere periode etudiee permet de commenter sue les quatre decisions les plus recentes de la Cour en la matiere, y compris l'affaire Childs c Desormeaux, rendue au mois de mai 2006. L'analyse de ce jugement revele qu'a l'instar des autres instances judiciaires de pays de common law, la Cour supreme est toujours en quete d'une reponse et que le debat risque de perdurer encore plusieurs annees. The duty of care concept has evolved tremendously in the law 40 years. Despite its obscure origins, this essential component of the tort of negligence has now become the cornerstone of any interpretation of liability in negligence. This article focuses on the development of this concept as evidenced by the Supreme Court of Canada decisions rendered between 1966 and 2006. The court's great challenge has been to conceive a proper interpretation scheme to determine whether, in a given case, a duty of care should be held to exist. It was not an easy task. The Court's approach is subdivided into three periods: the first corresponds roughly to the 1960-1970 decade, and is strongly influenced by the Donoghue v Stevenson case. The second, in the years 1980-1990, follows up on the two-criterion test formulated in the Anns v Merton London Borough Council case, reaching a climax in the Cooper v Hobart case rendered in 2001. The final period is examined to comment four of the most recent decisions on this issue, including the Childs v Desormeaux case rendered in May 2006. An analysis of this decision reveals that the Supreme Court, like other Canadian common law courts of justice, has yet to find the answer; this debate may continue for many years down the road.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".