Moreau v. Labelle

Moreau v. Labelle

The appeal was allowed because at the time of the accident the nephew was not acting in the execution of the functions entrusted to him (he had abandoned the direct task and used the vehicle for his own purposes), so the conditions of article 1054 C.C. for vicarious liability were not met and the master is not liable.

Citation
[1933] SCR 201
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Rodolphe Moreau; Plaintiff/respondent: Joseph Labelle
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 1933
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence) Master and Servant/vicarious Liability / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Court of King’s Bench reversed; respondent’s action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Scope of Employment, Employer Liability, Use of Motor Vehicle, Article 1054 C.c. Interpretation
Source Language
English
Torts Vicarious Liability Civil Liability Employment Law Master and Servant Scope of Employment Employer Liability Use of Motor Vehicle +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodolphe Moreau

Defendant/appellant

Joseph Labelle

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence) Master and Servant/vicarious Liability / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a master is liable for acts of a person entrusted with a vehicle who deviates from instructions and commits a tort
  2. 2 Whether acts committed ‘during the period’ of employment are assimilable to acts ‘in the performance of the work’ under art.1054 C.C.
  3. 3 Whether the nephew was acting in the execution of the functions entrusted to him at the time of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because at the time of the accident the nephew was not acting in the execution of the functions entrusted to him (he had abandoned the direct task and used the vehicle for his own purposes), so the conditions of article 1054 C.C. for vicarious liability were not met and the master is not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Court of King’s Bench reversed; respondent’s action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King’s Bench (Appeal Side, Quebec) reversed