Brooks, Scanlon, O'Brien Co. v. Fakkema

Brooks, Scanlon, O'Brien Co. v. Fakkema

The company was liable at common law because the jury found the system/installation was defective—specifically the engine was placed unnecessarily near the chute—so the employer could not avoid liability by pointing to a competent foreman; contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law.

Citation
(1911) 44 SCR 412
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Brooks, Scanlon, O'Brien Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Rhine Fakkema
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 1911
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (employer Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
Legal Topics
Employer Liability, Negligence, Defective System, Contributory Negligence, Fellow Servant Doctrine, Non Delegable Duty
Source Language
English
Torts Employment Law Employer Liability Negligence Defective System Contributory Negligence Fellow Servant Doctrine Non Delegable Duty

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brooks, Scanlon, O'Brien Company

Defendant/appellant

Rhine Fakkema

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (employer Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an incorporated company is liable at common law for injuries caused by a defective system or placement of plant used in dangerous operations
  2. 2 Whether the company's liability is negated because a competent foreman/superintendent directed the placement (fellow-servant/agent issue)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent or had assumed the risk

Ratio Decidendi

The company was liable at common law because the jury found the system/installation was defective—specifically the engine was placed unnecessarily near the chute—so the employer could not avoid liability by pointing to a competent foreman; contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $4,500 affirmed