Canada & Gulf Terminal Ry. Co. v. Levesque

Canada & Gulf Terminal Ry. Co. v. Levesque

Majority held appellant not liable because the immediate and effective cause of death was an excessive high‑voltage electric current (approx. 2,200 volts) which escaped from the power company's primary system and was under the care and control of the power company; the appellant's interior 110V installation and lamp were not proved to be the 'thing' under its care that caused the damage and the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to show otherwise, therefore appellant's judgment of the trial court (dismissal) must be restored and appeal allowed.

Citation
[1928] SCR 340
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Dame E. Levesque
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 1928
Procedural Posture
Tort (negligence, Wrongful Death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Burden of Proof, Liability for Things in Care (garde), Escape of Electric Current, Grounding and Electrical Precautions
Source Language
English
Torts Civil Code (quebec) Product/utility Liability Employer Safety Obligations Negligence Causation Burden of Proof Liability for Things in Care (garde) +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company

Appellant/defendant

Dame E. Levesque

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was liable in negligence under art.1053 C.C. for death of employee
  2. 2 Whether appellant was strictly liable under art.1054 C.C. for damage caused by a thing under its care (the interior electrical installation or lamp)
  3. 3 Whether the direct cause of death was the lamp or the escaped high‑voltage electric current

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held appellant not liable because the immediate and effective cause of death was an excessive high‑voltage electric current (approx. 2,200 volts) which escaped from the power company's primary system and was under the care and control of the power company; the appellant's interior 110V installation and lamp were not proved to be the 'thing' under its care that caused the damage and the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to show otherwise, therefore appellant's judgment of the trial court (dismissal) must be restored and appeal allowed.