Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSL
Case law is made up of the written decisions of judges in court cases and tribunals. Case law comes from all levels of courts in Canada. Interpretation of legislation evolves over time from actual trials and appeals etc. i.e case law.
In this instance the case law suggests that if harm occurs as a result of making a hole in the ice at a place frequented by the public, then no matter what precautions were taken they were clearly not 'adequate' enough.
|
PeterSL, I know how law and case law works.
What I don't know is the case law in this situation and it seems that no one here does although judging by your claims either you know something the rest of us do not or are making some pretty big assumptions.
Until someone can post some information regarding the court case I will continue to believe this is an over exaggeration to potential risk. The reason I am doing so is because the people that write laws are very careful on how they word things and this law was clearly written in a way to relieve the hole creator of liability if it is deemed adequate warning and protection was supplied. My guess is that the aerator in this case did not have a barrier(most don't) but that is just my guess until proven otherwise.
And yeah if they get rid of our aerators trout fishing is going to really go downhill. We have very few good lakes as it is let alone if they turn the aerators off.