Gagné v. St-Régis Paper Co. (Canada) Ltd.

Gagné v. St-Régis Paper Co. (Canada) Ltd.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in finding respondents at fault because the father either knew or should have known his child was on the small table next to the grinder, the father's lack of supervision was the decisive cause of the accident, the manager's failure to warn did not amount to fault under art.1053 C.C., and the alleged 'common repute' about protective grills was not established by evidence.

Citation
[1973] SCR 814
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Réjean Gagné; Respondent/defendant: St-Régis Paper Co. (Canada) Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: Guy St-Denis
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Negligence Tort / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Child Supervision, Causation, Evidence (common Repute), Art. 1053 Civil Code
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Civil Code Liability Duty of Care Child Supervision Causation Evidence (common Repute) Art. 1053 Civil Code

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

Parties

Réjean Gagné

Appellant/plaintiff

St-Régis Paper Co. (Canada) Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

Guy St-Denis

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Negligence Tort / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the manager owed a duty to prevent a child accessing a dangerous meat grinder
  2. 2 Whether the father's failure to supervise can be pleaded to exclude third‑party liability
  3. 3 Whether 'common repute' about protective grills can be relied on without evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in finding respondents at fault because the father either knew or should have known his child was on the small table next to the grinder, the father's lack of supervision was the decisive cause of the accident, the manager's failure to warn did not amount to fault under art.1053 C.C., and the alleged 'common repute' about protective grills was not established by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs if demanded