Cone v. Welock

The appeal was allowed because the evidence showed the appellant reasonably believed he was using stove oil, there was no evidence he knew or must have known it was gasoline, and therefore he owed no greater duty to the plaintiff and was not negligent.

Citation: [1970] SCR 494
Parties: Defendant, Appellant: Arthur L. Cone, Jr.; Plaintiff, Respondent: George N. Welock
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 27 January 1970
Procedural Posture: Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome: Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored dismissing plaintiff's claim.
Legal Topics: Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Identification of Substances, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Causation
Source Language: English

Torts Negligence Property Damage Duty of Care Standard of Care Identification of Substances Res Ipsa Loquitur Causation

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 Party arguments 2

Parties

Arthur L. Cone, Jr.

Defendant, Appellant

George N. Welock

Plaintiff, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

1 Whether the appellant was negligent in using an unknown fluid to start a fire
2 Whether the appellant had a legal duty to take greater care to identify the fluid
3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving lack of reasonable care

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored dismissing plaintiff's claim.

Orders

Set aside judgment of the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick
Restore trial judgment dismissing action with costs to the appellant (costs in Appeal Division and in the Supreme Court of Canada)