Landels v. Christie

Landels v. Christie

Where the trial judge and the appellate court sitting en banc both infer negligence from the totality of circumstantial evidence — making negligence more consistent with the proved facts than accident — the Supreme Court will not disturb that conclusion absent clear error; res ipsa loquitur need not be established.

Citation
[1923] SCR 39
Parties
Appellant (defendant): George Landels; Appellant (defendant): Gilbert E. Fauquier; Appellant (defendant): Johnson P. Porter; Respondent (plaintiff): Thomas R. Christie; Respondent (plaintiff): Herbert O. Christie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Negligence (tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (en Banc)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Fire Damage, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Circumstantial Evidence, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review of Findings of Fact
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Fire Damage Res Ipsa Loquitur Circumstantial Evidence Burden of Proof Appellate Review of Findings of Fact

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Landels

Appellant (defendant)

Gilbert E. Fauquier

Appellant (defendant)

Johnson P. Porter

Appellant (defendant)

Thomas R. Christie

Respondent (plaintiff)

Herbert O. Christie

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Negligence (tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (en Banc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether negligence can be inferred from circumstances of a destructive fire where specific act is not proved
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to fires in this context
  3. 3 Allocation of burden of explanation once circumstantial evidence makes negligence the more reasonable inference

Ratio Decidendi

Where the trial judge and the appellate court sitting en banc both infer negligence from the totality of circumstantial evidence — making negligence more consistent with the proved facts than accident — the Supreme Court will not disturb that conclusion absent clear error; res ipsa loquitur need not be established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of trial court and decision of Supreme Court of Nova Scotia affirmed.