Scottish Metropolitan Assur. Co. Ltd v. Canada Steamship Lines, Ltd.

Scottish Metropolitan Assur. Co. Ltd v. Canada Steamship Lines, Ltd.

The carrier failed to discharge the statutory burden of proving both that it exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and that the loss was caused by a latent defect; the bent bolt was a visible defect that invited attention and its existence meant the statutory defences under ss.6 and 7 were not established, so the trial judgment in favour of the insured is restored.

Citation
[1930] SCR 262
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Company, Limited; Defendant/respondent: Canada Steamship Lines, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 1929
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of King’s Bench reversed; judgment of Superior Court restored in favour of plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Due Diligence, Seaworthiness, Latent Defect, Burden of Proof, Statutory Defences Under Water Carriage of Goods Act S.6 and S.7
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Insurance Transportation Law Due Diligence Seaworthiness Latent Defect Burden of Proof Statutory Defences Under Water Carriage of Goods Act S.6 and S.7

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

Parties

Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Company, Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Canada Steamship Lines, Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shipowner/carrier exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and properly equipped
  2. 2 Whether the loss was occasioned by a latent defect in the bolt material
  3. 3 Which party bears the burden of proof to establish absence of fault and latent defect under ss.6 and 7

Ratio Decidendi

The carrier failed to discharge the statutory burden of proving both that it exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and that the loss was caused by a latent defect; the bent bolt was a visible defect that invited attention and its existence meant the statutory defences under ss.6 and 7 were not established, so the trial judgment in favour of the insured is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of King’s Bench reversed; judgment of Superior Court restored in favour of plaintiff.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Restore judgment of the Superior Court in favour of Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Company for the value of the lost cargo