Question
1. The Supreme Court of Canada distinguishes that duties of care exist between businesses serving alcohol and road users because of the expectation of everyone
1. The Supreme Court of Canada distinguishes that duties of care exist between businesses serving alcohol and road users because of the expectation of everyone that alcohol intake is monitored, and servers are trained (paragraph 18), the profit motive (paragraphs 20-22) and a supervisory relationship (41 - 46: there is no relationship of hosts controlling guests at a party), and says social hosts don't have these same factors present. Do you personally think that a private person supplying a venue where people are drinking should be sufficient to establish a duty of care to road users (and making them liable to road users for negligence)? Why or why not? This question specifically has to do with the "duty of care" analysis in negligence law. You may find it helpful to explicitly do the 3 part Duty of Care analysis, paying special attention to "proximity"
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
![blur-text-image](https://dsd5zvtm8ll6.cloudfront.net/includes/images/document_product_info/blur-text-image.webp)
Get Instant Access with AI-Powered Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
![blur-text-image](https://dsd5zvtm8ll6.cloudfront.net/includes/images/document_product_info/blur-subtext-image.webp)
Step: 3
![blur-text-image](https://dsd5zvtm8ll6.cloudfront.net/includes/images/document_product_info/blur-subtext-image.webp)
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started