Tooke v. Bergeron

Tooke v. Bergeron

Although the employer may have been technically deficient under factory safety norms, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury was the minor employee's deliberate act of arranging her hair at her sewing station in contravention of rules; therefore the employer's alleged default was not the direct cause of the damage and he is not liable.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 567
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Benjamin Tooke; Respondent/plaintiff: Felix Bergeron
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 1897
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence (master and Servant) Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Superior Court for Lower Canada (review) at Montreal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Review reversed; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Contributory Negligence, Factory Safety Regulations, Quebec Factories Act, Causation, Foreseeability
Source Language
English
Labour Law Torts Negligence Employer Liability Occupational Safety Master and Servant Contributory Negligence Factory Safety Regulations +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Tooke

Appellant/defendant

Felix Bergeron

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence (master and Servant) Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Superior Court for Lower Canada (review) at Montreal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer liable for injuries where machinery unguarded
  2. 2 Whether breach of the Quebec Factories Act gives a private right of action
  3. 3 Whether the employee's conduct (contravening workplace rules) was the direct cause of the injury

Ratio Decidendi

Although the employer may have been technically deficient under factory safety norms, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury was the minor employee's deliberate act of arranging her hair at her sewing station in contravention of rules; therefore the employer's alleged default was not the direct cause of the damage and he is not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Review reversed; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Action dismissed with costs before all courts.