Greisman v. Gillingham

Greisman v. Gillingham

Plaintiff was a licensee with an interest because the cleaning was performed in pursuance of the lease; there was sufficient evidence that the elevator interlocking device was defective and that the defect was discoverable by the owner exercising reasonable care; contributory negligence by plaintiff did not bar recovery under Ontario law so liability was imposed on the owner for the apportioned share of fault, and the Court of Appeal’s adjustments to damages and costs should stand.

Citation
[1934] SCR 375
Parties
Defendant and Third Party Appellant: Henry Greisman; Plaintiff Respondent: David Gillingham; Defendant and Third Party Respondent: Shiffer-Hillman Clothing Manufacturing Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1934
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (judicial Review of Jury Findings and Costs)
Outcome
Appeal by Greisman dismissed; cross-appeal by plaintiff dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed with its variations.
Legal Topics
Defective Premises, Elevator Safety and Interlocking Devices, Licensee With Interest Vs Bare Licensee, Discoverability of Defect, Contributory Negligence, Joinder and Third Party Claims, Indemnity and Contribution
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Occupiers' Liability Civil Procedure Costs and Joinder Defective Premises Elevator Safety and Interlocking Devices Licensee With Interest Vs Bare Licensee Discoverability of Defect +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Greisman

Defendant and Third Party Appellant

David Gillingham

Plaintiff Respondent

Shiffer-Hillman Clothing Manufacturing Co.

Defendant and Third Party Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (judicial Review of Jury Findings and Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was a bare licensee or a licensee with an interest/invitee for purposes of occupier's duty
  2. 2 Whether owner (Greisman) was liable for defective elevator interlock that caused plaintiff's fall
  3. 3 Whether the defective condition was discoverable by reasonable care by the owner but not by the lessee

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff was a licensee with an interest because the cleaning was performed in pursuance of the lease; there was sufficient evidence that the elevator interlocking device was defective and that the defect was discoverable by the owner exercising reasonable care; contributory negligence by plaintiff did not bar recovery under Ontario law so liability was imposed on the owner for the apportioned share of fault, and the Court of Appeal’s adjustments to damages and costs should stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Greisman dismissed; cross-appeal by plaintiff dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed with its variations.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed without costs