Breslin v. Driscoll

Breslin v. Driscoll

The appellants are liable because their servant invited the drivers to use the concrete strip adjoining the premises, the appellants knew of the concealed cellar (hidden peril) under that strip while the drivers did not, and the appellants failed to warn of that foreseeable danger; the drivers' contravention of the municipal by‑law and excess load did not constitute an effective contributing negligence to the collapse.

Citation
[1956] SCR 64
Parties
Defendant/appellant: J. Edward Breslin; Defendant/appellant: Sam Breslin; Plaintiff/respondent: Samuel Joseph Driscoll
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 1955
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Invitee, Duty to Warn of Hidden Peril, Foreseeability, Vicarious Liability for Servant's Act, Contributory Negligence/trespass as Defence
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Occupiers' Liability Municipal by Law Compliance Invitee Duty to Warn of Hidden Peril Foreseeability Vicarious Liability for Servant's Act +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Edward Breslin

Defendant/appellant

Sam Breslin

Defendant/appellant

Samuel Joseph Driscoll

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants (invitors) owed a duty to warn invitees of a hidden peril on adjoining public highway/sidewalk they knew about
  2. 2 Whether words/actions of appellants' servant constituted an invitation to use the sidewalk
  3. 3 Whether breach of municipal by-law and overloaded truck constituted negligence contributing to the accident or a mere causa sine qua non

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants are liable because their servant invited the drivers to use the concrete strip adjoining the premises, the appellants knew of the concealed cellar (hidden peril) under that strip while the drivers did not, and the appellants failed to warn of that foreseeable danger; the drivers' contravention of the municipal by‑law and excess load did not constitute an effective contributing negligence to the collapse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent
  • Judgment awarding respondent damages for personal injuries affirmed