Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada

Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada

Majority: The condition of the floor at the tellers' wickets on the day constituted an "unusual danger"; the bank failed to take easy and economical precautions (mats, mopping, system) and therefore did not use reasonable care; the defence of volenti was not established because the plaintiff was not shown to have full knowledge and consented to the risk; contributory negligence not made out — appeal allowed and trial judgment restored.

Citation
[1964] SCR 85
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Enga Christine Campbell; Defendant Respondent: The Royal Bank of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil: Torts — Negligence (occupiers' Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; Martland and Ritchie JJ. dissenting
Legal Topics
Invitor and Invitee, Unusual Danger, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Reasonable Precautions
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Occupiers' Liability Invitor and Invitee Unusual Danger Volenti Non Fit Injuria Contributory Negligence Duty of Care +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enga Christine Campbell

Plaintiff Appellant

The Royal Bank of Canada

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil: Torts — Negligence (occupiers' Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether water/glaze on bank floor constituted an "unusual danger" for invitees
  2. 2 Whether the bank used reasonable care to prevent damage to invitees
  3. 3 Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The condition of the floor at the tellers' wickets on the day constituted an "unusual danger"; the bank failed to take easy and economical precautions (mats, mopping, system) and therefore did not use reasonable care; the defence of volenti was not established because the plaintiff was not shown to have full knowledge and consented to the risk; contributory negligence not made out — appeal allowed and trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; Martland and Ritchie JJ. dissenting

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of Maybank J. restored