Hosking v. Le Roi No. 2, Ltd.

Hosking v. Le Roi No. 2, Ltd.

Majority held that because the company had provided a system, competent surveyors and officers and the inaccuracies arose from defaults of those officers (or possibly negligence of the superintendent), common law liability was displaced by the fellow‑servant principle but statutory liability under R.S.B.C. c.69 s.3 might exist; accordingly the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered to determine statutory liability. Taschereau C.J. dissented, holding that the employer breached the common law duty and judgment should be entered for plaintiffs on the jury verdict.

Citation
(1903) 34 SCR 244
Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: Elizabeth Jane Hosking and Others; Respondents/defendants: Le Roi No. 2, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1903
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Common Employment Doctrine, Employer Liability, Statutory Interpretation, Mine Surveying and Plans, Fellow Servant Rule
Source Language
English
Mines and Minerals Torts Employers' Liability Occupational Safety Negligence Mining Regulation Common Employment Doctrine Employer Liability +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Jane Hosking and Others

Appellants/plaintiffs

Le Roi No. 2, Limited

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an absent mine-owner is under an absolute duty to ensure accurate and up-to-date working plans
  2. 2 Whether negligence of surveyors or a superintendent constitutes negligence of a fellow-servant preventing common law recovery
  3. 3 Whether the Employers' Liability Act (R.S.B.C. c.69 s.3) imposes liability for negligence of persons entrusted with superintendence

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that because the company had provided a system, competent surveyors and officers and the inaccuracies arose from defaults of those officers (or possibly negligence of the superintendent), common law liability was displaced by the fellow‑servant principle but statutory liability under R.S.B.C. c.69 s.3 might exist; accordingly the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered to determine statutory liability. Taschereau C.J. dissented, holding that the employer breached the common law duty and judgment should be entered for plaintiffs on the jury verdict.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • New trial ordered