From: calvin@remove.daxack.ca   
      
   hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com) said...   
   >   
   >On Monday, July 14, 2014 11:36:56 PM UTC-4, Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote:   
   >   
   >> My point started with how the charges of criminal wrongdoing on the   
   >> part of the employee ought not stand up and that not even civil   
   >> liability would hold up. The charges are for show, but unfortunately   
   >> the accused has to defend against such charges.   
   >   
   >In the course of a demolition of a property, a wall fell over and crashed   
   >onto the building next door, killing a number of people.  The crane   
   >operator has been charged with numerous offenses.   
      
   Understandable. However, keep in mind we are speaking of Canadian Law   
   with Lac Megantic.   
      
   I strongly suspect that a crane operator in Canada would be subject to   
   various charges in a case like that, up to manslaughter. Not so clear   
   as it pertains to the locomotive engineer in the Lac Megantic case,   
   unless some deliberate ignoring of procedure occurred.   
      
   Why do I say this? Simply because there is a precident in Canadian Law   
   that went to our Supreme Court. In my signature line, I have a quote   
   from our Chief Justice that came from the decision in the case of   
   Mustapha vs. Culligan of Canada Ltd.   
      
   Mr. Mustapha found a fly in a bottle of water and claimed to suffer a   
   serious and prolonged psychological injury. The Supreme Court agreed that   
   this happended and agreed with his argument that the water bottle company   
   owed him a duty of care to supply him with uncontaminated water.   
      
   However, the legal standard for determining whether to award damages in a   
   negligence claim is whether or not "the harm [is] too unrelated to the   
   wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable."   
      
   The legal standard for criminal cases is higher, and just because one   
   can imagine a Rube Goldberg-like connection of dots between cause and   
   ultimate effect does not mean there is civil liability let alone criminal   
   intent.   
      
   --   
   Calvin Henry-Cotnam   
   "Unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence   
    are imaginable, but not reasonably foreseeable"   
     - Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, May 2008   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)