Trottier v. J.L. Lefebvre Ltée

Trottier v. J.L. Lefebvre Ltée

Art.1054 presumption did not apply because the injury resulted from the employee putting his hand into a normally functioning machine; however the employer was found seriously at fault under art.1053 for supplying and situating equipment in a manner that increased risk (unusual height, inadequate lighting, distant switch, short rammer, no guard, insufficient protection), and thus must bear two-thirds of liability; appeal allowed and Superior Court judgment restored with reduced quantum.

Citation
[1973] SCR 609
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Marcel Trottier; Defendant/respondent: J.L. Lefebvre Ltée
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; Superior Court judgment restored in part; Fauteux C.J. and Abbott J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer Duty to Employee, Liability for Things (art.1054), Fault Based Liability (art.1053), Contributory Negligence, Causation
Source Language
English
Torts Labour/employment Law Civil Code (quebec) Workplace Safety Negligence Employer Duty to Employee Liability for Things (art.1054) Fault Based Liability (art.1053) +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcel Trottier

Plaintiff/appellant

J.L. Lefebvre Ltée

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether art.1054 Civil Code presumption of liability for damage caused by a thing applies where damage resulted from employee's act rather than malfunction of machine
  2. 2 Whether employer breached duty under art.1053 by providing inadequate working conditions and equipment and thus is liable for employee's injury
  3. 3 Allocation of fault/contributory negligence between employee and employer

Ratio Decidendi

Art.1054 presumption did not apply because the injury resulted from the employee putting his hand into a normally functioning machine; however the employer was found seriously at fault under art.1053 for supplying and situating equipment in a manner that increased risk (unusual height, inadequate lighting, distant switch, short rammer, no guard, insufficient protection), and thus must bear two-thirds of liability; appeal allowed and Superior Court judgment restored with reduced quantum.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; Superior Court judgment restored in part; Fauteux C.J. and Abbott J. dissenting.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed.