Lewis v. Nisbet & Auld Ltd.

Lewis v. Nisbet & Auld Ltd.

Given the jury findings that the deceased was acting within the scope of his employment, using the sill in a permitted and reasonable manner, and that the sill's decayed condition caused it to give way, the injury was 'caused' by a 'defect' within s.119(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act; employer liability attaches even if the defect arose without employer negligence; therefore the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment and sustained the jury findings except that the damages awarded were excessive and a new trial limited to quantum was ordered.

Citation
[1934] SCR 333
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mary Jane Lewis, Administratrix of the Estate of John Lewis Lewis, Deceased; Respondent/defendant: Nisbet & Auld Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1934
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Employer Liability/personal Injury / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; jury findings sustained except as to amount of damages; new trial ordered limited to assessment of damages
Legal Topics
Employer Liability, Workmen's Compensation, Causation, Defect in Premises, Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment
Source Language
English
Labour Law Torts Statutory Interpretation Employer Liability Workmen's Compensation Causation Defect in Premises Contributory Negligence +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Jane Lewis, Administratrix of the Estate of John Lewis Lewis, Deceased

Appellant/plaintiff

Nisbet & Auld Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Employer Liability/personal Injury / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury was 'caused' by a 'defect' in the window sill within s.119(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act R.S.O. 1927 c.179
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'defect' and relevance of intended use
  3. 3 Whether employee's conduct (assumption of risk) defeats statutory remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Given the jury findings that the deceased was acting within the scope of his employment, using the sill in a permitted and reasonable manner, and that the sill's decayed condition caused it to give way, the injury was 'caused' by a 'defect' within s.119(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act; employer liability attaches even if the defect arose without employer negligence; therefore the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment and sustained the jury findings except that the damages awarded were excessive and a new trial limited to quantum was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; jury findings sustained except as to amount of damages; new trial ordered limited to assessment of damages

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside.