Canadian Vickers Ltd. v. Smith

Canadian Vickers Ltd. v. Smith

Majority: The injury was caused by a thing (the lathe) under the defendant's care within article 1054 C.C.; the presumption of liability required the defendant to prove it was unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage; on the evidence the defendant failed to establish such inability, so liability attached...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1923] SCR 203
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Canadian Vickers Ltd.; Plaintiff Respondent: A. G. Smith
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Negligence (master and Servant) / On Appeal From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Quebec affirmed (Davies C.J. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability for Things Under Care (art.1054 C.c.), Burden of Proof for Exculpation, Workplace Safety (guards and Goggles)
Source Language
english
Torts Employers' Liability Civil Law (quebec) Negligence Liability for Things Under Care (art.1054 C.c.) Burden of Proof for Exculpation Workplace Safety (guards and Goggles)

Source-derived case record

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

Canadian Vickers Ltd.

Defendant Appellant

A. G. Smith

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Negligence (master and Servant) / On Appeal From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damage caused by lathe chips falls within article 1054 C.C.
  2. 2 Whether defendant bore burden to prove inability by reasonable means to prevent the damage
  3. 3 Whether provision or enforcement of goggles or installation of a guard was a reasonable and practicable means of prevention

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The injury was caused by a thing (the lathe) under the defendant's care within article 1054 C.C.; the presumption of liability required the defendant to prove it was unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage; on the evidence the defendant failed to establish such inability, so liability attached (judgment below affirmed).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Quebec affirmed (Davies C.J. dissenting).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed