Lessard v. Hull Electric Company

Lessard v. Hull Electric Company

The January 11, 1928 deed transferred the electric lighting and distributing system (including poles and wires serving domestic/municipal lighting within Hull) to Gatineau Electric (and successors); evidence established Gatineau (and successors) had custody, control and maintenance of the wires on the Quebec side at the time of the accident, so Hull Electric Company neither owned nor had custody of the wire and cannot be held liable under art.1053 or art.1054 C.C.; deed interpretation is a question of law for the court and the jury verdict was unsupported by the evidence and properly set aside by the Court of King’s Bench, appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1947] SCR 22
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Parmelia Lessard; Respondent (defendant): Hull Electric Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 1946
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench (quebec); Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability for Things (responsibility of Guardian), Interpretation of Deed of Sale, Jury Direction and Province of Law Vs Fact
Source Language
English
Torts Contract/property Civil Procedure Negligence Liability for Things (responsibility of Guardian) Interpretation of Deed of Sale Jury Direction and Province of Law Vs Fact

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parmelia Lessard

Appellant (plaintiff)

Hull Electric Company

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench (quebec); Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the electric wire was owned by or under the care, control or supervision of Hull Electric Company at time of accident
  2. 2 Whether Hull Electric Company was liable under Quebec Civil Code art. 1053 (fault/negligence) or art. 1054 (liability for things under one's custody)
  3. 3 Whether the 1928 deed of sale transferred the wire to Gatineau and thus removed Hull's liability

Ratio Decidendi

The January 11, 1928 deed transferred the electric lighting and distributing system (including poles and wires serving domestic/municipal lighting within Hull) to Gatineau Electric (and successors); evidence established Gatineau (and successors) had custody, control and maintenance of the wires on the Quebec side at the time of the accident, so Hull Electric Company neither owned nor had custody of the wire and cannot be held liable under art.1053 or art.1054 C.C.; deed interpretation is a question of law for the court and the jury verdict was unsupported by the evidence and properly set aside by the Court of King’s Bench, appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of King’s Bench dismissing action restored