Theriault v. Gravel

Theriault v. Gravel

Because the deceased knew of the floor opening, participated in arrangements for its partial covering, and the fall resulted from his misstep or loss of balance, the contractor did not breach the legal standard of care; the law does not demand protection against inherent, known construction hazards.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1961] SCR 114
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Lucienne Theriault; Defendant Respondent: Simon Gravel
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 1960
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Assumption of Risk, Construction Site Hazards, Occupiers' Duty, Contributory Negligence
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Civil Code (quebec) Standard of Care Assumption of Risk Construction Site Hazards Occupiers' Duty Contributory Negligence

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Lucienne Theriault

Plaintiff Appellant

Simon Gravel

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contractor breached duty of care by leaving an inadequately covered opening in a floor
  2. 2 Whether the deceased's knowledge of the opening and conduct precluded contractor liability
  3. 3 Whether a contractor is required to provide guardrails or additional protections against inherent construction hazards

Ratio Decidendi

Because the deceased knew of the floor opening, participated in arrangements for its partial covering, and the fall resulted from his misstep or loss of balance, the contractor did not breach the legal standard of care; the law does not demand protection against inherent, known construction hazards.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Decision of the Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side) dismissing the plaintiff's action upheld.