Murphy v. Labbé

Murphy v. Labbé

Majority held that to rebut the presumption in article 1629 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada the lessee need not prove the exact origin of the fire or that it was an unavoidable accident; it is sufficient to prove that he used the premises as a prudent administrator (en bon père de famille) and that the fire occurred without any fault attributable to him or persons for whose acts he is responsible. The evidence before the appellate court satisfied that standard and thus exonerated the lessee.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 126
Parties
Appellant (lessor): John B. Murphy; Respondent (lessee): George H. Labbé
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal — Landlord and Tenant; Loss by Fire and Civil Liability Under Civil Code of Lower Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side) affirmed (Strong C.J. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Fire Loss, Presumption of Negligence, Onus of Proof, Rebuts of Presumption, Hazardous Occupation, Civil Code Art.1629
Source Language
English
Landlord and Tenant Civil Liability Contract Tort Fire Loss Presumption of Negligence Onus of Proof Rebuts of Presumption +2 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John B. Murphy

Appellant (lessor)

George H. Labbé

Respondent (lessee)

Procedural Posture

Appeal — Landlord and Tenant; Loss by Fire and Civil Liability Under Civil Code of Lower Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What evidence must a lessee adduce to rebut the legal presumption under art.1629 C.C. that a fire was caused by the lessee or those for whom he is responsible
  2. 2 Whether the lessee must prove the exact origin of the fire or only that he used the premises with due care (en bon père de famille)
  3. 3 Whether the lessor who erected the premises and contracted for insurance bears responsibility for defects or foreseeable risks

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that to rebut the presumption in article 1629 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada the lessee need not prove the exact origin of the fire or that it was an unavoidable accident; it is sufficient to prove that he used the premises as a prudent administrator (en bon père de famille) and that the fire occurred without any fault attributable to him or persons for whose acts he is responsible. The evidence before the appellate court satisfied that standard and thus exonerated the lessee.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side) affirmed (Strong C.J. dissenting)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada affirmed