Dominion Cartridge Co. v. McArthur

Dominion Cartridge Co. v. McArthur

Appeal allowed: where the immediate cause of an explosion is unexplained and there is no positive testimony or weighty, precise and consistent presumptions linking employer fault as the immediate, necessary and direct cause of injury, an appellate court must relieve the employer of liability and may set aside a jury verdict even if two lower courts sustained it.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 392
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Dominion Cartridge Company; Respondent (plaintiff): Archibald McArthur
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 1901
Procedural Posture
Tort — Negligence — Employer Liability (workplace Explosion) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side), Province of Quebec; Case Reserved by Trial Judge Under Civil Procedure Rules
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff set aside and action dismissed
Legal Topics
Proximate Cause, Presumptions and Circumstantial Evidence, Jury Findings and Appellate Review, Dangerous Materials and Workplace Safety
Source Language
English
Labour Law Tort Employer Liability Negligence Proximate Cause Presumptions and Circumstantial Evidence Jury Findings and Appellate Review Dangerous Materials and Workplace Safety

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominion Cartridge Company

Appellant (defendant)

Archibald McArthur

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Tort — Negligence — Employer Liability (workplace Explosion) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side), Province of Quebec; Case Reserved by Trial Judge Under Civil Procedure Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer is liable for employee injuries from an explosion when immediate cause is unexplained
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial presumptions can establish employer negligence as the immediate, necessary and direct cause
  3. 3 Whether appellate court should overturn jury and two lower court findings absent evidence of proximate cause

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed: where the immediate cause of an explosion is unexplained and there is no positive testimony or weighty, precise and consistent presumptions linking employer fault as the immediate, necessary and direct cause of injury, an appellate court must relieve the employer of liability and may set aside a jury verdict even if two lower courts sustained it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff set aside and action dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of Queen's Bench (and Court of Review) reversed