Madill v. Sommer Building Corpn.

Madill v. Sommer Building Corpn.

The appeal was dismissed because the exclusion of liability clause in the lease unambiguously exonerated the lessor from all damage including that caused by water and steam; additionally no proven fault of the lessor or its agents was established and the plumber who caused the condition was an independent contractor, so the lessor incurred no delictual liability.

Citation
[1978] 1 SCR 999
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff; Attorney for Insurer Lloyd's): J.A. Madill; Respondent (defendant; Lessor): Sommer Building Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (lease/landlord and Tenant; Property Damage) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Exclusion of Liability Clause, Act of the Thing (responsibility for Thing Under One's Care), Agency and Independent Contractor Liability, Interpretation of Lease, Subrogation
Source Language
English
Lease Contract Law Tort (delict) Insurance Law Exclusion of Liability Clause Act of the Thing (responsibility for Thing Under One's Care) Agency and Independent Contractor Liability Interpretation of Lease +1 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.A. Madill

Appellant (plaintiff; Attorney for Insurer Lloyd's)

Sommer Building Corporation

Respondent (defendant; Lessor)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (lease/landlord and Tenant; Property Damage) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease exclusion clause absolved the lessor from liability for damage caused by steam from a radiator
  2. 2 Whether the lessor could be held liable under Civil Code art.1054 for damage caused by the act of the thing (thing under one's care)
  3. 3 Whether the plumber's intervention (third party) constituted a fault of the lessor by agency or by failure to prevent the act of the thing

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the exclusion of liability clause in the lease unambiguously exonerated the lessor from all damage including that caused by water and steam; additionally no proven fault of the lessor or its agents was established and the plumber who caused the condition was an independent contractor, so the lessor incurred no delictual liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs