George Mathews Co. v. Bouchard

George Mathews Co. v. Bouchard

Majority held that although the evidence of employer negligence was not strong, there was some evidence and both lower courts found the employer's failure to cover or stop the shaft caused the injury; concurrent factual findings will not be reversed on appeal, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the judgments for the plaintiff are affirmed. Dissent held the evidence equally supports that the plaintiff's own imprudence was the direct cause and that causation by employer negligence was not proved.

Citation
(1898) 28 SCR 580
Parties
Appellant / Defendant / Employer: George Matthews Company; Respondent / Plaintiff / Employee: Abel Bouchard
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 1898
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Negligence (master and Servant) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgments below affirmed
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Employer Duty to Provide Safe Machinery, Causation, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Contributory Negligence / Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Statutory Breach and Civil Liability
Source Language
English
Labour Law Tort Negligence Employer Liability Statutory Safety Regulation Master and Servant Employer Duty to Provide Safe Machinery Causation +3 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Matthews Company

Appellant / Defendant / Employer

Abel Bouchard

Respondent / Plaintiff / Employee

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Negligence (master and Servant) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's failure to cover or stop a revolving shaft was the immediate and direct cause of the employee's injury
  2. 2 Whether concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts should be disturbed on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the employee's own imprudence bars recovery

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that although the evidence of employer negligence was not strong, there was some evidence and both lower courts found the employer's failure to cover or stop the shaft caused the injury; concurrent factual findings will not be reversed on appeal, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the judgments for the plaintiff are affirmed. Dissent held the evidence equally supports that the plaintiff's own imprudence was the direct cause and that causation by employer negligence was not proved.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgments below affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Superior Court awarding plaintiff $1,323 with costs affirmed by Court of Queen's Bench and by Supreme Court of Canada