This article employs the case study method to investigate the social history of Canadian tort law and litigation after 1945. Its focus is Menow v Jordan House, the stem precedent of the Canadian common law of tavern-keeper liability for intoxicated patrons. The article examines the historical genesis, pleading, and adjudication of this litigation, probing why – in Canada in the late 1960s and early 1970s – the novel tort claim of an ejected intoxicant against a vendor of alcohol not only was imagined, discussed, and commenced but also was won by the plaintiff at three levels of court. The authors argue that the Jordan House lawsuit exemplified a pivotal moment of socio-legal discontinuity in Canada, portending a quarter century of change in three major facets of its tort law system: in the perceptions of lay persons with respect to their private legal rights and obligations; in the personal convictions, social geography, and litigation strategies of Canadian lawyers; and in the formulation of tort doctrine by Canada’s trial and appellate judges. The article is a sub-study of a larger project on the reinvention of tort law and litigation in Canada in the half-century after World War II.

中文翻译：

---

1945-95 年加拿大侵权法的再发明：以约旦之家为例

本文采用案例研究的方法，调查了 1945 年后加拿大侵权法和诉讼的社会历史。其重点是加拿大普通法关于醉酒顾客的酒馆老板责任的主要先例 Menow v Jordan House。这篇文章探讨了这场诉讼的历史起源、诉状和裁决，探讨了为什么——在 1960 年代末和 1970 年代初的加拿大——针对酒精供应商的被喷出的麻醉品的新颖侵权索赔不仅被想象、讨论和开始但也被原告在三级法院胜诉。作者认为，约旦众议院的诉讼是加拿大社会法律中断的关键时刻，预示着其侵权法体系的三个主要方面将发生 25 年的变化：外行人对其私人法律权利和义务的看法；在加拿大律师的个人信念、社会地理和诉讼策略方面；以及加拿大初审和上诉法官制定的侵权原则。这篇文章是二战后半个世纪加拿大侵权法和诉讼再造的一个更大项目的子研究。