Miller v. King

Miller v. King

The employer was liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the negligence of its superintendent in failing to brace and secure an article under construction so as to protect workers from foreseeable shocks from passing loads; however an article in process of manufacture does not constitute a defect in the employer's premises/plant within the meaning of the Act.

Citation
(1904) 34 SCR 710
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: John Bellamy Miller; Respondent / Plaintiff: Elizabeth King, Administratrix of the Property of Peter King, Deceased; Co Defendant: Colville (lorry owner)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 1904
Procedural Posture
Negligence Tort; Appeal Concerning Liability Under Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (judgment Heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Master and Servant Liability, Workmen's Compensation Act, Premises Liability
Source Language
English
Torts Labour and Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Master and Servant Liability Workmen's Compensation Act Premises Liability

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Bellamy Miller

Appellant / Defendant

Elizabeth King, Administratrix of the Property of Peter King, Deceased

Respondent / Plaintiff

Colville (lorry owner)

Co Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence Tort; Appeal Concerning Liability Under Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (judgment Heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer was liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for negligence of its superintendent in bracing an article under construction
  2. 2 Whether the overturned engine constituted a defect in the premises, plant or machinery within the meaning of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the jury's finding of negligent bracing was supported by the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The employer was liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the negligence of its superintendent in failing to brace and secure an article under construction so as to protect workers from foreseeable shocks from passing loads; however an article in process of manufacture does not constitute a defect in the employer's premises/plant within the meaning of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff against appellant Miller for $1,200 and costs.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.