Dumont v. Fraser

Dumont v. Fraser

Majority held that art. 7298 did not repeal or limit the compensatory obligation in art. 7349(2); persons availing themselves of the right to float timber must compensate riparian owners for damages resulting from that exercise except where damages could not have been avoided by reasonable care or were occasioned by the riparian owner’s fault. On the facts the drive was not performed by a bona fide independent contractor shielding the respondents (the purported contract was void/nullity or respondents retained control), so respondents are liable and the trial judge’s award is to be restored.

Citation
(1912) 48 SCR 137
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Alphonse Dumont; Respondents / Defendants: Donald Fraser and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort/damages) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec (appeal Side); Judgment Delivered Feb 18, 1913
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); judgment of the Superior Court restored; dissent by Davies and Anglin JJ.
Legal Topics
Driving Timber, Riparian Rights, Servitude, Independent Contractor Liability, Construction of Statute, Damages Resulting, Log Driving
Source Language
English
Tort Property Statutory Interpretation Driving Timber Riparian Rights Servitude Independent Contractor Liability Construction of Statute +2 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alphonse Dumont

Appellant / Plaintiff

Donald Fraser and Others

Respondents / Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort/damages) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec (appeal Side); Judgment Delivered Feb 18, 1913

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether R.S.Q. art. 7298 displaced or limited the obligation to repair "damages resulting" under R.S.Q. art. 7349(2)
  2. 2 Whether owners of timber are strictly liable for damage caused by driving logs down private streams or liable only for their own negligence
  3. 3 Whether the log-driver Guérette was a bona fide independent contractor shielding the timber owners from liability

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that art. 7298 did not repeal or limit the compensatory obligation in art. 7349(2); persons availing themselves of the right to float timber must compensate riparian owners for damages resulting from that exercise except where damages could not have been avoided by reasonable care or were occasioned by the riparian owner’s fault. On the facts the drive was not performed by a bona fide independent contractor shielding the respondents (the purported contract was void/nullity or respondents retained control), so respondents are liable and the trial judge’s award is to be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); judgment of the Superior Court restored; dissent by Davies and Anglin JJ.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the learned trial judge (Superior Court) restored