Beauchamp v. Consolidated Paper Corporation Ltd.

Beauchamp v. Consolidated Paper Corporation Ltd.

The company, having invited the claimants onto its private road and being aware of the bridge's hazardous condition (partly concealed by snow and ice), owed a duty to warn or prevent passage; its signage was not sufficiently explicit to exclude liability; failure to warn was the proximate cause of the deaths;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1961] SCR 664
Parties
Plaintiff, Appellant: Dame Virginie Beauchamp; Defendant, Respondent: Consolidated Paper Corporation Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored
Legal Topics
Duty to Warn, Dangerous Premises, Exclusion Clause Interpretation, Contributory Negligence, Invitee Status
Source Language
english
Tort Negligence Occupiers' Liability Motor Vehicles Contract/exclusion Clauses Duty to Warn Dangerous Premises Exclusion Clause Interpretation +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dame Virginie Beauchamp

Plaintiff, Appellant

Consolidated Paper Corporation Limited

Defendant, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owner/operator of a private road/bridge owed a duty to warn invitees of an unusual latent danger
  2. 2 Whether signage disclaiming liability barred recovery
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs voluntarily assumed the risk (volenti non fit injuria)

Ratio Decidendi

The company, having invited the claimants onto its private road and being aware of the bridge's hazardous condition (partly concealed by snow and ice), owed a duty to warn or prevent passage; its signage was not sufficiently explicit to exclude liability; failure to warn was the proximate cause of the deaths; contributory negligence was apportioned 20% to the driver and 80% to the defendant, so the trial judgment was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of Queen's Bench (trial) restored; defendant held 80% liable and driver 20% liable