Nov 26, 2014

Issue: whether a stat. regulatory (registrar) owes a duty of care to the investing members of public

-Anns only applies when we’re asserting a novel duty of care

Ratio: no DOC bc there was insufficient proximity to ground even a prima facie DOC, policy reasons that would negate DOC


Anns Test:

    1.Whether or not there’s a prima facie duty of care

    a.Reasonable foreseeability of harm

    b.Proximity (defined by Cooper) – micro policy “concept not a test”

    2.Are there any policy reasons that would negate or restrict this duty?


    1.Adds proximity

    a.In proximity if their relationship is sufficiently close and direct – fair to assume D should be aware and mindful of the interests of the P


    i.Expectations, representations, reliance, and property or other interests involved

    ii.Micro-policy stage

    c.P.306 already established proximity relationships

    i.Reasonable foreseeability of physical harm

    ii.Negligent misrepresentation

    iii.Risk of danger

    iv.Misfeasance of public office

    v.Purchasers of real estate

    vi.Road maintenance

    vii.Relational economic loss

Cooper v Hobart

    1.Is the duty of care within an established category or is it analogous?

    a.If yes, DOC exists

    b.If no, apply Cooper-Anns (novel DOC)

    2.1A – Was the harm to plaintiff reasonably foreseeable?

    a.If yes, move onto proximity

    b.If no, no DOC, no negligence action

    3.1B – Proximity?

    a.If yes, prima facie DOC exists move onto 2 of test (Policy considerations)

    b.If no, no DOC

    4.2 – Residual Policy Considerations (BOP on defendant)

    a.Floodgates of litigation

    b.Judicial/legislative independence

    c.Administrative difficulty

Societal values