Horsley v. MacLaren

Horsley v. MacLaren

Majority: MacLaren owed a duty to attempt rescue but his conduct — though not the textbook 'bow on' method — did not amount to negligence that aggravated the peril or induced Horsley to risk his life; the error was an excusable judgment call in an emergency and therefore MacLaren not liable for Horsley's death. Dissent: the failure to follow the uncontradicted proper rescue method was a breach that could have prompted Horsley's rescue and rendered MacLaren liable.

Citation
[1972] SCR 441
Parties
Appellants (plaintiffs): Astrid Horsley; Richard J. Horsley; Lawrence A. Horsley; Michael A. Horsley (by next friend Thomas Robertson); Respondents (defendants): Kenneth W. MacLaren and the ship "Ogopogo"; Respondent (defendant): Richard J. Jones
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1971
Procedural Posture
Fatal Accidents / Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal (1971)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); Hall and Laskin JJ. dissenting
Legal Topics
Duty to Rescue, Rescuer Liability, Standard of Care in Emergency Rescue, Foreseeability, Contributory Negligence, Canada Shipping Act S.526(1), Limitation of Liability
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Maritime Law Fatal Accidents Duty to Rescue Rescuer Liability Standard of Care in Emergency Rescue Foreseeability +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Astrid Horsley; Richard J. Horsley; Lawrence A. Horsley; Michael A. Horsley (by next friend Thomas Robertson)

Appellants (plaintiffs)

Kenneth W. MacLaren and the ship "Ogopogo"

Respondents (defendants)

Richard J. Jones

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Fatal Accidents / Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal (1971)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an owner/operator owes a common law duty to attempt rescue of an invited guest who falls overboard
  2. 2 Whether the operator's method of rescue amounted to negligence that aggravated the peril and induced a second guest to rescue and die
  3. 3 Whether error of judgment in emergency amounts to negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: MacLaren owed a duty to attempt rescue but his conduct — though not the textbook 'bow on' method — did not amount to negligence that aggravated the peril or induced Horsley to risk his life; the error was an excusable judgment call in an emergency and therefore MacLaren not liable for Horsley's death. Dissent: the failure to follow the uncontradicted proper rescue method was a breach that could have prompted Horsley's rescue and rendered MacLaren liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); Hall and Laskin JJ. dissenting

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs