Royal Electric Co. v. Hévé

Royal Electric Co. v. Hévé

The defendants were liable because they failed to exercise the high degree of care, skill and foresight required of suppliers of electricity: they allowed secondary wiring to remain inadequately insulated and in dangerous proximity to a guy-wire known to become live in wet weather, and those failures caused the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1902) 32 SCR 462
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Royal Electric Company; Respondent / Plaintiff: Malvina Hévé
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 1902
Procedural Posture
Negligence Wrongful Death (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Standard of Care for Dangerous Operations, Insulation and Maintenance of Electrical Wires, Causation and Proof, Liability of Companies Under Special Charter, Contributory Negligence (quebec)
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Public Utility Law Contractual Obligations of Service Providers Duty of Care Standard of Care for Dangerous Operations Insulation and Maintenance of Electrical Wires Causation and Proof +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Electric Company

Appellant / Defendant

Malvina Hévé

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence Wrongful Death (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were negligent in supplying electricity and maintaining secondary wiring leading to death
  2. 2 Whether the deceased's death was caused by an electric shock from the defendants' system
  3. 3 What standard of care applies to suppliers of electricity operating under a special charter

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were liable because they failed to exercise the high degree of care, skill and foresight required of suppliers of electricity: they allowed secondary wiring to remain inadequately insulated and in dangerous proximity to a guy-wire known to become live in wet weather, and those failures caused the fatal electric shock; the factual findings of defective insulation and proximity establish negligence and causation sufficient to affirm the award of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench and Superior Court affirmed