Hamel v. Chartré

Hamel v. Chartré

The presumption of fault under art.1054 C.C. does not apply where the deceased’s independent intervention created or materially contributed to the dangerous condition; here the deceased, a tradesman acting on his initiative, undertook work beyond his competence and his extreme carelessness was the sole cause of death, so the owner is not liable.

Citation
[1976] 2 SCR 680
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Paul Hamel; Plaintiff Respondent: Dame Cécile Chartré
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for the Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; respondent's action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Electrocution, Presumption of Fault, Autonomous Act of a Thing, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Foreseeability, Civil Code Art.1054, Civil Code Art.1056
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Occupiers' Liability Civil Liability Under Civil Code Electrocution Presumption of Fault Autonomous Act of a Thing Contributory Negligence +4 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Hamel

Defendant Appellant

Dame Cécile Chartré

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for the Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of fault in art.1054 C.C. applies
  2. 2 Whether the victim’s intervention created or contributed to the dangerous condition breaking causation
  3. 3 Whether the owner was liable for the autonomous act of a thing in his care

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of fault under art.1054 C.C. does not apply where the deceased’s independent intervention created or materially contributed to the dangerous condition; here the deceased, a tradesman acting on his initiative, undertook work beyond his competence and his extreme carelessness was the sole cause of death, so the owner is not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; respondent's action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed