The Quebec Liquor Commission v. Moore

The Quebec Liquor Commission v. Moore

The Court reversed the lower courts because the majority concluded the Commission did not assume temporary control of the contractor's employees (no patron momentané) and therefore was not vicariously liable; additionally, in the view of at least one justice, the Commission, constituted and financed as an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1924] SCR 540
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Quebec Liquor Commission; Respondent (plaintiff): W. H. Moore
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 1924
Procedural Posture
Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; Idington J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Temporary Control (patron Momentané), Occupier's Duty to Warn, Crown/state Immunity, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
english
Torts Contract Public/administrative Law Negligence Vicarious Liability Temporary Control (patron Momentané) Occupier's Duty to Warn Crown/state Immunity +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quebec Liquor Commission

Appellant (defendant)

W. H. Moore

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Quebec Liquor Commission assumed temporary control of the contractor's employees so as to be liable for their negligence
  2. 2 Whether the Commission, as occupier, breached a duty to warn persons invited to the premises of a known danger
  3. 3 Whether the Commission is immune from delict actions as an instrumentality of the provincial Crown under its constituting statute

Ratio Decidendi

The Court reversed the lower courts because the majority concluded the Commission did not assume temporary control of the contractor's employees (no patron momentané) and therefore was not vicariously liable; additionally, in the view of at least one justice, the Commission, constituted and financed as an instrumentality of the provincial Crown, would not be answerable in a delict action under the statutory scheme. Judgment of the Court of King's Bench was reversed (Idington J. dissenting).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; Idington J. dissenting.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 36 K.B. 494) reversed.
  • Action against the Quebec Liquor Commission dismissed.