Temiskaming Mining Co. v. Siven

Temiskaming Mining Co. v. Siven

The employer breached a statutory safety duty (s.164(17) Mining Act) by failing to provide a suitable pentice over the shaft; because the duty was statutory the fellow servant doctrine did not bar recovery, so the verdict for the plaintiff was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1912) 46 SCR 643
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Temiskaming Mining Co.; Respondent/plaintiff: Siven
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 1912
Procedural Posture
Negligence (tort; Mining Accident) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Judgment Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Fellow Servant Doctrine, Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Workplace Safety, Mining Act Compliance
Source Language
English
Torts Mining Law Employment Law Statutory Regulation Negligence Fellow Servant Doctrine Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Temiskaming Mining Co.

Appellant/defendant

Siven

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence (tort; Mining Accident) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Judgment Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer was liable in negligence for a falling rock in a mine shaft
  2. 2 Whether breach of statutory duty under the Mining Act removes protection of the fellow servant doctrine
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The employer breached a statutory safety duty (s.164(17) Mining Act) by failing to provide a suitable pentice over the shaft; because the duty was statutory the fellow servant doctrine did not bar recovery, so the verdict for the plaintiff was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiff affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent.
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff Siven in the amount of $2,500.