Leznek v. The City of Verdun

Leznek v. The City of Verdun

Because the jury found the plaintiff used the transom bar for a purpose for which it was not intended, article 1055(3) C.C. does not apply and the city cannot be held legally responsible for the accident; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1940] SCR 313
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Andrew Leznek; Respondent / Defendant: The City of Verdun
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1940
Procedural Posture
Tort (negligence) Municipal Liability Under Quebec Civil Code / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (appeal Side), Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of King's Bench (appeal side) affirming dismissal of action affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability of Owner for Want of Repairs, Independent Contractor Liability, Causation, Application of Art. 1055 C.c.
Source Language
English
Tort Municipal Law Civil Code (quebec) Negligence Liability of Owner for Want of Repairs Independent Contractor Liability Causation Application of Art. 1055 C.c.

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Leznek

Appellant / Plaintiff

The City of Verdun

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort (negligence) Municipal Liability Under Quebec Civil Code / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (appeal Side), Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owner liable under article 1055(3) C.C. for damage caused by a building part that failed when used by an independent contractor for an unintended purpose
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's use of the transom bar for an unintended purpose negates application of art. 1055(3) C.C.
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's own fault and the jury apportionment bars recovery against the city

Ratio Decidendi

Because the jury found the plaintiff used the transom bar for a purpose for which it was not intended, article 1055(3) C.C. does not apply and the city cannot be held legally responsible for the accident; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of King's Bench (appeal side) affirming dismissal of action affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.