Regal Oil & Refining Co. v. Campbell

Regal Oil & Refining Co. v. Campbell

The jury's factual findings that the plant was negligently constructed/maintained, that the plaintiff did not voluntarily assume the specific risk, and that he was not contributorily negligent were open to the jury and supported by expert evidence; accordingly the appellate court properly affirmed the verdict and both corporate defendants were liable on the facts because one was occupant/contracting party and the other had control and management of operations.

Citation
[1936] SCR 309
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Regal Oil & Refining Company, Limited; Defendant/appellant: Regal Distributors, Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Fred A. Campbell
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 April 1936
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Master and Servant Duty, Volenti Non Fit Injuria (assumption of Risk), Contributory Negligence, Delegation of Employer's Duty, Joint Liability of Related Companies, Rylands V. Fletcher (non‑application)
Source Language
English
Torts Employment Law Occupiers' Liability Commercial Law Negligence Master and Servant Duty Volenti Non Fit Injuria (assumption of Risk) Contributory Negligence +3 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 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regal Oil & Refining Company, Limited

Defendant/appellant

Regal Distributors, Limited

Defendant/appellant

Fred A. Campbell

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were negligent in construction and maintenance of the bulk station plant
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk (volenti non fit injuria)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's factual findings that the plant was negligently constructed/maintained, that the plaintiff did not voluntarily assume the specific risk, and that he was not contributorily negligent were open to the jury and supported by expert evidence; accordingly the appellate court properly affirmed the verdict and both corporate defendants were liable on the facts because one was occupant/contracting party and the other had control and management of operations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $24,585 affirmed