Tag Archives: tort

Random Girls rule

oh my.  Doctor claims in lawsuit that “out-of-wedlock conception deprived him of the choice of falling in love, marrying, and choosing when to have a child.” Toronto judge rightly chucks it out.  Here.   Such a small thing, but here it is, Saturday night and all the interesting bits of Pride and Prejudice are over, only the mush is left.  So, a few things….

1. the information including the age of the child and age of the woman does seem to open doors for possible identification.

2.    Now THIS is how it’s done:

“But then came the text message at 7:06 p.m. on Aug. 10, 2014, that would shock PP and change his life forever.

DD said she was 10 weeks pregnant with PP’s baby, according to the statement of claim.

PP wanted her to get an abortion.

DD said no.

PP said, “I don’t want to have a baby with some random girl.”

DD said, “This random girl is fine doing it on her own.””

3. the “emotional damage” here, might, with some escalation, approach what at least one Canadian legal scholar (ok, on twitter) seemed to suggest would meet the R. v. Hutchinson [2014] 1 SCR 346 (because there were a surprising number of people who only wanted to talk about Hutchinson in terms of “but what about when the women do it”).  This is in tort, though, obviously.

4. The lawyer who drafted the statement of claim is, mercifully for them perhaps, not named.  Am I being too dismissive of the strength of the claimant’s argument? #notatortexpertunderanydefinitionofexpert.

Source: Doctor sues mother of his child for emotional damages | Toronto Star

NIP: Feminist Perspectives on Tort Law

Lovely lineup here from eds. Richardson (Monash) and Rackley (Durham; she will visit the IFLS in July 2012), including two from Canada (Osgoode’s Dayna Scott and UVic’s Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey).

Feminist Perspectives on Tort Law Routledge (link to publisher’s website)

1: Introduction, Janice Richardson and Erika Rackley

2: Duty of Care and Ethic of Care: Irreconcilable Difference?, Jenny Steele

3. Endgame: On Negligence and Reparation for Harm, Nicky Priaulx

4.Pollution and the Body Boundary: Exploring Scale, Gender and Remedy, Dayna Nadine Scott

5. Trust in the police? Police Negligence, Invisible Immunity and Disadvantaged Claimants, Kirsty Horsey;

6. Knowledge and Power in Drug Testing and Promotion: The Adverse Effects on Women’s Health, Patricia Peppin;

7. The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence– Still Reasonably Troublesome?, José Miola;

8. The Sexual Politics of Privacy Law and Theory, Janice Richardson; 9. Tort claims for Rape: More Trials, Fewer Tribulations?, Nikki Godden;

10. Sexual Wrongdoing: Do the Remedies Reflect the Wrong?, Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey;

11. Damaging Stereotypes: the Return of ‘Hoovering as a Hobby’, Reg Graycar

See Routledge’s entire Feminist Perspectives series here.

Now Posted on SSRN: A New Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations: Gender and Erotic Triangles in Lumley v. Gye

looks interesting

Swan, Sarah Lynnda, A New Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations: Gender and Erotic Triangles in Lumley v. Gye (August 29, 2011). Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, Vol. 35, 2012.

The tort of interference with contractual relations has many puzzling features that conflict with fundamental principles of contract and tort law. This Article considers how gender influenced the structure of the tort and gave rise to many of these anomalies. Lumley v. Gye, the English case that first established interference with contractual relations, arose from a specifically gendered dispute: two men fighting over a woman. This type of male—male—female configuration creates an erotic triangle, a common archetype in Western culture. The causes of action that served as the legal precedents for interference with contractual relations – enticement, seduction, and criminal conversation – are previous instances where the law regulated gendered triangular conflicts. Enticement prohibited a rival male from taking another man’s servant, seduction prohibited a rival male from taking another man’s daughter, and criminal conversation prohibited a rival male from taking another man’s wife.

via A New Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations: Gender and Erotic Triangles in Lumley v. Gye by Sarah Swan :: SSRN.