Dominion Glass Co. v. Despins

Dominion Glass Co. v. Despins

Majority held that appellant employer was not civilly liable because no actionable fault by the employer was proven and the death was the proximate result of the boy's own act; the presumption of fault under art.1054 C.C. did not apply because the damage was not caused by a thing under the defendant's control, and the Industrial Establishments Act provision barring plea of victim's contributory negligence does not, by itself, create liability absent employer fault.

Citation
(1922) 63 SCR 544
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Dominion Glass Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Joseph B. Despins
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 1922
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Appeal Allowed, Judgment of Court of King's Bench Reversed
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Employer Liability for Child Employees, Presumption of Fault (custody of a Thing), Industrial Establishments Act (r.s.q. 1909)
Source Language
English
Torts Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Contributory Negligence Employer Liability for Child Employees Presumption of Fault (custody of a Thing) Industrial Establishments Act (r.s.q. 1909)

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominion Glass Company

Appellant/defendant

Joseph B. Despins

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Appeal Allowed, Judgment of Court of King's Bench Reversed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer is civilly liable for death of a 14‑year‑old employee
  2. 2 Whether a presumption of fault under Civil Code art.1054 applies where damage followed use of premises by the victim
  3. 3 Whether breach of the Industrial Establishments Act (arts.3835 et seq.) establishes employer liability or only precludes pleading contributory negligence by the employer

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that appellant employer was not civilly liable because no actionable fault by the employer was proven and the death was the proximate result of the boy's own act; the presumption of fault under art.1054 C.C. did not apply because the damage was not caused by a thing under the defendant's control, and the Industrial Establishments Act provision barring plea of victim's contributory negligence does not, by itself, create liability absent employer fault.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec, reversed