Taylor v. People's Loan & Savings Corp.

Taylor v. People's Loan & Savings Corp.

Plaintiff could not recover because there was no evidence he was an invitee of the owner and the defendant’s duty was no greater than that of landlord under the lease; absent an express covenant the landlord is not liable for defective construction or lack of fire escapes; municipal by‑law protections were not triggered because required inspector notice had not been given; and the Factory Act did not apply to the fourth floor, so no statutory duty arose to impose liability.

Citation
[1930] SCR 190
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Eugene Taylor; Respondent / Defendant: The People’s Loan and Savings Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 1930
Procedural Posture
Torts Personal Injury / Landlord and Tenant / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division of Ontario affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Landlord Liability for Premises, Invitee Vs Licensee Status, Fire Escapes and Building Safety, Application of Factory, Shop and Office Building Act
Source Language
English
Torts Landlord and Tenant Municipal Law Statutory Interpretation Occupational Safety/factory Regulation Negligence Landlord Liability for Premises Invitee Vs Licensee Status +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Taylor

Appellant / Plaintiff

The People’s Loan and Savings Corporation

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Torts Personal Injury / Landlord and Tenant / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was an invitee of the defendant or otherwise owed a duty greater than landlord under the lease
  2. 2 Whether landlord is liable for defective construction or lack of fire escapes absent express covenant in lease
  3. 3 Whether City of London by‑law requiring fire escapes applied where no inspector notice was given

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff could not recover because there was no evidence he was an invitee of the owner and the defendant’s duty was no greater than that of landlord under the lease; absent an express covenant the landlord is not liable for defective construction or lack of fire escapes; municipal by‑law protections were not triggered because required inspector notice had not been given; and the Factory Act did not apply to the fourth floor, so no statutory duty arose to impose liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division of Ontario affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario affirmed.