48:. He invited several friends out on his boat including Mr. Matthews, Mr. Horsley, and Mr. and Mrs. Jones. During their cruise, Matthews fell overboard into the icy water which caused him to have a heart attack and die. MacLaren backed the boat up to rescue Matthews not knowing if he was alive. Horsley jumped into the water to save Matthews but he was also overcome by the cold water. Mrs. Jones then jumped in to help them both. Mr. Jones, Mrs. Jones' husband, moved the boat into a better position to rescue the three. In all, Mr. Matthews and Mr.Horsley were killed.
76:
J. wrote for the court: "So, despite the moral outrage of the text writers, it appears presently the law that one can, with immunity, smoke a cigarette on the beach while one’s neighbour drowns and, without a word of warning watch a child or blind person walk into certain danger".
35:
decision where it was held that there is no duty at common law to rescue or aid anyone in distress. Furthermore, "a person who imperils himself by his carelessness may be as fully liable to a rescuer as a third person would be who imperils another."
86:
60:
of one rescuer to a succeeding one where the former has not been guilty of any fault which could be said to have induced a second rescue attempt." The
148:
56:
The Court held that "encouragement by the common law of the rescue of persons in danger would ... go beyond reasonable bounds if it involved
125:
153:
143:
69:
104:
E. R. Alexander, "One
Rescuer's Obligation to Another: The 'Ogopogo' Lands in the Supreme Court of Canada,"
32:
121:
61:
57:
137:
73:
87:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (Richards Court through Fauteux Court)
64:
case doesn't touch this principle, because it says that you have a
65:
68:
to avoid causing harm, not a duty to help someone else. In the
44:
MacLaren was the owner and captain of a boat called
8:
72:decision 2 O.R. 487, 11 D.L.R. (3d) 277,
108:, vol. 22, no. 2. (Spring, 1972), p. 110.
16:Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada
120:Full text of Supreme Court decision at
97:
106:The University of Toronto Law Journal
7:
14:
1:
149:Supreme Court of Canada cases
24:, S.C.R. 441, also known as
70:Court of Appeal for Ontario
170:
154:1972 in Canadian case law
33:Supreme Court of Canada
144:Canadian tort case law
62:Donoghue v Stevenson
52:Opinion of the Court
21:Horsley v MacLaren
161:
109:
102:
169:
168:
164:
163:
162:
160:
159:
158:
134:
133:
117:
112:
103:
99:
95:
83:
54:
42:
31:, is a leading
17:
12:
11:
5:
167:
165:
157:
156:
151:
146:
136:
135:
130:
129:
116:
115:External links
113:
111:
110:
96:
94:
91:
90:
89:
82:
79:
53:
50:
41:
38:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
166:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:
142:
141:
139:
132:
127:
123:
119:
118:
114:
107:
101:
98:
92:
88:
85:
84:
80:
78:
75:
74:Arthur Jessup
71:
67:
63:
59:
51:
49:
47:
39:
37:
34:
30:
28:
23:
22:
131:
105:
100:
55:
45:
43:
26:
25:
20:
19:
18:
46:The Ogopogo
27:the Ogopogo
138:Categories
122:Canlii.org
93:References
40:Background
58:liability
81:See also
126:lexum
124:and
66:duty
29:case
140::
128:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.