Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part: the evidence excluding independent causes could support tenant liability, but it did not establish with the necessary specificity that the manager Roméo Lahaie, rather than another employee, was the human cause of the fire; therefore the judgment against the manager was set aside while liability of Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd. was upheld.

Citation
[1976] 2 SCR 46
Parties
Appellant Defendant (tenant): Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd.; Appellant Defendant (manager): Roméo Lahaie; Respondent Plaintiff (insurer by Subrogation): The Travelers Indemnity Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (torts/insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec (judgment Affirmed Below)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: judgment against Roméo Lahaie set aside; judgment against Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd. affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Presumption of Fault, Vicarious Liability, Expert Evidence, Standard of Appellate Review on Findings of Fact
Source Language
English
Torts Insurance Law Evidence Negligence Presumption of Fault Vicarious Liability Expert Evidence Standard of Appellate Review on Findings of 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd.

Appellant Defendant (tenant)

Roméo Lahaie

Appellant Defendant (manager)

The Travelers Indemnity Company

Respondent Plaintiff (insurer by Subrogation)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (torts/insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec (judgment Affirmed Below)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant and its manager can be held liable for a fire on presumed human fault when independent causes are eliminated by expert opinion
  2. 2 Whether the presumption in art.1629 C.C. applies
  3. 3 Whether evidence supports presuming a specific employee (the manager) caused the fire

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part: the evidence excluding independent causes could support tenant liability, but it did not establish with the necessary specificity that the manager Roméo Lahaie, rather than another employee, was the human cause of the fire; therefore the judgment against the manager was set aside while liability of Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd. was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: judgment against Roméo Lahaie set aside; judgment against Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd. affirmed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed against Roméo Lahaie with costs in the Superior Court only
  • Appeal dismissed as to Trans-Canada Shoe Ltd.; respondent's judgment against the company affirmed; costs awarded against the company