Shawinigan Carbide Co. v. Doucet

Shawinigan Carbide Co. v. Doucet

The furnace and its appliances were under the company's custody and used for its profit; an explosion under those circumstances, unexplained by the employer, established actionable negligence and, under article 1054 C.C., a person is responsible for damage caused by things under their care unless they establish the cause was due to the injured party's fault, vis major or pure accident; accordingly the employer was liable and the trial judgment awarding damages was affirmed.

Citation
(1909) 42 SCR 281
Parties
Defendant; Appellant: Shawinigan Carbide Company; Plaintiff; Respondent: Jean Doucet
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1909
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of King's Bench restoring trial judgment affirmed; dissent by Duff J.
Legal Topics
Res Ipsa Loquitur, Article 1054 C.c. (liability for Things Under One's Care), Onus of Proof, Employers' Liability, Dangerous Works, Defective Appliances
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Civil Code Interpretation Res Ipsa Loquitur Article 1054 C.c. (liability for Things Under One's Care) Onus of Proof Employers' Liability Dangerous Works +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shawinigan Carbide Company

Defendant; Appellant

Jean Doucet

Plaintiff; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Art.1054 C.C. creates a presumption of liability shifting the burden to defendant
  2. 2 Whether an unexplained explosion occurring while plaintiff performed duties establishes actionable negligence (res ipsa loquitur)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff or employer had control/guardianship of the thing that caused the injury

Ratio Decidendi

The furnace and its appliances were under the company's custody and used for its profit; an explosion under those circumstances, unexplained by the employer, established actionable negligence and, under article 1054 C.C., a person is responsible for damage caused by things under their care unless they establish the cause was due to the injured party's fault, vis major or pure accident; accordingly the employer was liable and the trial judgment awarding damages was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of King's Bench restoring trial judgment affirmed; dissent by Duff J.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of King's Bench restoring trial judgment maintained