Bénard v. Hingston

Bénard v. Hingston

The Court held that damages were caused by an extraordinary inundation amounting to vis major or, alternatively, that the tenant, having accepted the premises after expert repairs with knowledge of flood risk, assumed the risk; accordingly art. 1614 C.C. did not make the landlord liable and the appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1917) 56 SCR 17
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Joseph Elie Bénard; Respondent/defendant: Lady Margaret Hingston
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 1917
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Lease, Repairs, Liability of Landlord, Damages, Vis Major/act of God, Assumption of Risk
Source Language
english
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Law Civil Law (quebec) Lease Repairs Liability of Landlord Damages +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Elie Bénard

Appellant/plaintiff

Lady Margaret Hingston

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord was liable under art. 1614 C.C. for flood damage to leased premises
  2. 2 Whether the flood constituted vis major/Act of God excusing landlord liability
  3. 3 Whether the tenant assumed the risk by accepting premises after expert repairs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that damages were caused by an extraordinary inundation amounting to vis major or, alternatively, that the tenant, having accepted the premises after expert repairs with knowledge of flood risk, assumed the risk; accordingly art. 1614 C.C. did not make the landlord liable and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal abandoned