Canadian Asbestos Co. v. Girard

Canadian Asbestos Co. v. Girard

Because a competent inspection had been duly performed by skilled personnel under the foreman's direction who honestly judged the wall safe, the company could not be held negligent despite a subsequent mistaken judgment; the appellate court reversed the lower courts because they relied on presumptions instead of the direct evidence of inspection.

Citation
(1905) 36 SCR 13
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Canadian Asbestos Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Léocadie Girard
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 1905
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (wrongful Death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court Sitting in Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the courts below reversed with costs to appellants.
Legal Topics
Inspection Duty, Employer Liability, Presumptions of Negligence, Reversal of Factual Findings
Source Language
English
Mines and Minerals Torts Workplace Safety Negligence Inspection Duty Employer Liability Presumptions of Negligence Reversal of Factual Findings

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Asbestos Company

Defendant/appellant

Léocadie Girard

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (wrongful Death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court Sitting in Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether competent post-blast inspection by employer/foreman precludes liability when inspected area later fails
  2. 2 Whether appellate court may reverse factual findings of lower courts that relied on presumptions when direct evidence exists
  3. 3 Whether evidence of general dangerous condition of mine can displace direct testimony of competent inspector

Ratio Decidendi

Because a competent inspection had been duly performed by skilled personnel under the foreman's direction who honestly judged the wall safe, the company could not be held negligent despite a subsequent mistaken judgment; the appellate court reversed the lower courts because they relied on presumptions instead of the direct evidence of inspection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the courts below reversed with costs to appellants.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs