Hastings v. Le Roi No. 2, Ltd.

Hastings v. Le Roi No. 2, Ltd.

Majority held plaintiff was in common employment because the company retained control and direction over the work and workforce (superintendent approval, direction, wage control and dismissal power); therefore the injury caused by a fellow servant's negligence fell within the fellow-servant rule and relieved the company of liability, and the statutory inspection breach was not the operative cause of the accident.

Citation
(1903) 34 SCR 177
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Charles J. Hastings; Defendant/respondent: Le Roi No. 2, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 1903
Procedural Posture
Negligence / Tort / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia (full Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the full Court of British Columbia affirmed
Legal Topics
Common Employment, Fellow Servant Rule, Control and Direction, Statutory Inspection Duties, Liability for Defective Machinery, Master and Servant
Source Language
English
Torts Employment Law Mining Regulation Contract Law Common Employment Fellow Servant Rule Control and Direction Statutory Inspection Duties +2 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles J. Hastings

Plaintiff/appellant

Le Roi No. 2, Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Negligence / Tort / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the plaintiff in common employment with the defendants' servants?
  2. 2 Did the defendants' statutory duty under the Metalliferous Mines Inspection Act create liability notwithstanding common employment?
  3. 3 Was the accident caused by a failure to inspect or by a fellow servant's negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held plaintiff was in common employment because the company retained control and direction over the work and workforce (superintendent approval, direction, wage control and dismissal power); therefore the injury caused by a fellow servant's negligence fell within the fellow-servant rule and relieved the company of liability, and the statutory inspection breach was not the operative cause of the accident.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the full Court of British Columbia affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs