Hillman v. MacIntosh

Hillman v. MacIntosh

The plaintiff was an invitee; the owner owed a personal duty to maintain the elevator and its interlock in safe condition; the owner breached that duty by allowing the interlock to become defective and failed to show reasonable inspections or maintenance; entrustment to a contractor without evidence of periodic competent inspection did not absolve the owner; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1959] SCR 384
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Benjamin Hillman; Plaintiff Respondent: Douglas Marshall MacIntosh
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1959
Procedural Posture
Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff restored
Legal Topics
Invitee V. Licensee, Duty of Care of Occupier, Independent Contractor Defence, Contributory Negligence, Elevator Safety Interlocks, Statutory Duty Under S.58(1)(c) of the Factory, Shop and Office Building Act
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Occupiers' Liability Statutory Regulation Invitee V. Licensee Duty of Care of Occupier Independent Contractor Defence Contributory Negligence +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Hillman

Defendant Appellant

Douglas Marshall MacIntosh

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the express messenger was an invitee or licensee
  2. 2 Scope of the occupier's duty to maintain elevator safety
  3. 3 Whether entrusting maintenance to an independent contractor discharged the owner’s duty

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was an invitee; the owner owed a personal duty to maintain the elevator and its interlock in safe condition; the owner breached that duty by allowing the interlock to become defective and failed to show reasonable inspections or maintenance; entrustment to a contractor without evidence of periodic competent inspection did not absolve the owner; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff restored

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs