Hanes v. Kennedy

Hanes v. Kennedy

Carl was negligent in pointing and discharging a dangerous air-pistol; Frank, as person in charge, was negligent for allowing the dangerous instrument to be exhibited and used on the premises; William, as occupier/proprietor, was liable for his employee's negligence; the Court will not overturn the Court of Appeal's reduction of general damages from $10,000 to $5,000 absent error of principle, so appeals and cross-appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1941] SCR 384
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Carl Hanes; Defendant Appellant: Frank Hanes; Defendant Appellant: William Hanes; Plaintiff (infant) Respondent: Thomas W.J. Kennedy; Plaintiff (next Friend) Respondent: T.J. Kennedy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 1941
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (occupiers' Liability, Assault) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Cross Appeal by Plaintiffs on Quantum
Outcome
Appeals and cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below otherwise affirmed
Legal Topics
Liability for Dangerous Articles, Vicarious Liability, Assessment of General Damages, Assault and Battery
Source Language
English
Torts Occupiers' Liability Negligence Liability for Dangerous Articles Vicarious Liability Assessment of General Damages Assault and Battery

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Hanes

Defendant Appellant

Frank Hanes

Defendant Appellant

William Hanes

Defendant Appellant

Thomas W.J. Kennedy

Plaintiff (infant) Respondent

T.J. Kennedy

Plaintiff (next Friend) Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (occupiers' Liability, Assault) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Cross Appeal by Plaintiffs on Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the person who discharged the air-pistol negligent?
  2. 2 Was the person in charge of the store liable for allowing a dangerous article to be used on the premises?
  3. 3 Was the proprietor/occupier vicariously liable for the negligence of the person in charge?

Ratio Decidendi

Carl was negligent in pointing and discharging a dangerous air-pistol; Frank, as person in charge, was negligent for allowing the dangerous instrument to be exhibited and used on the premises; William, as occupier/proprietor, was liable for his employee's negligence; the Court will not overturn the Court of Appeal's reduction of general damages from $10,000 to $5,000 absent error of principle, so appeals and cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals and cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below otherwise affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs