Ross v. Dunstall / Ross v. Emery

Ross v. Dunstall / Ross v. Emery

Majority held that the rifle's ability to be fired while the bolt was unlocked constituted a latent hidden danger; the manufacturer failed to take reasonable steps to warn purchasers of that latent danger, and that omission amounted to fault/neglect under art.1053 C.C. (and is consistent with arts.1522/1527 regarding latent defects), rendering the manufacturer liable; appeals dismissed and Court of King's Bench judgments affirmed (Brodeur J. dissenting).

Citation
(1921) 62 SCR 393
Parties
Appellant / Defendant / Manufacturer: Sir Charles Ross; Respondent / Plaintiff / Purchaser: Charles O. Dunstall; Respondent / Plaintiff / Purchaser: Sloan M. Emery
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 1921
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (product Liability / Negligence / Contract of Sale) / On Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec (judgment Affirmed)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench affirmed; cross-appeals against reductions in damages dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Latent Defect, Manufacturer Duty to Warn, Contractual Vs Delictual Fault, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
English
Torts Contract Law Product Liability Quebec Civil Law Negligence Latent Defect Manufacturer Duty to Warn Contractual Vs Delictual Fault +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Charles Ross

Appellant / Defendant / Manufacturer

Charles O. Dunstall

Respondent / Plaintiff / Purchaser

Sloan M. Emery

Respondent / Plaintiff / Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (product Liability / Negligence / Contract of Sale) / On Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec (judgment Affirmed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether manufacturer liable for injuries caused by rifle that can be fired when bolt is unlocked
  2. 2 Whether the condition constituted a latent defect within arts. 1522/1527 C.C.
  3. 3 Whether failure to warn purchasers of the latent danger constitutes fault/neglect under art. 1053 C.C.

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the rifle's ability to be fired while the bolt was unlocked constituted a latent hidden danger; the manufacturer failed to take reasonable steps to warn purchasers of that latent danger, and that omission amounted to fault/neglect under art.1053 C.C. (and is consistent with arts.1522/1527 regarding latent defects), rendering the manufacturer liable; appeals dismissed and Court of King's Bench judgments affirmed (Brodeur J. dissenting).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench affirmed; cross-appeals against reductions in damages dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Court of King's Bench reductions in damages to stand (Dunstall award reduced from $11,060 to $8,560; Emery award reduced from $10,000 to $5,482)