Norcross Bros. Co. v. Gohier

Norcross Bros. Co. v. Gohier

The Court held that Article 1054 C.C. creates a rebuttable presumption of fault against the person who has custody of an inanimate thing that causes damage; the employer failed to satisfactorily rebut that presumption because the signalling system and the conduct (Rice's call) contributed to the accident, so the employer remains liable; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
(1918) 56 SCR 415
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Norcross Bros. Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Dame Marie A. Gohier
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Employer's Liability / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Cross-appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Presumption of Fault, Onus Probandi, Contributory Negligence, Liability for Things Under One's Care, Article 1054 C.c.
Source Language
English
Torts Employer Liability Civil Code Interpretation Presumption of Fault Onus Probandi Contributory Negligence Liability for Things Under One's Care Article 1054 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norcross Bros. Company

Appellant/defendant

Dame Marie A. Gohier

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Employer's Liability / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1054 C.C. creates a presumption of fault where an inanimate thing under a person's care causes damage
  2. 2 Whether the employer met the onus to rebut the presumption by proving the cause was external to him
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence by the employee reduces or defeats recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Article 1054 C.C. creates a rebuttable presumption of fault against the person who has custody of an inanimate thing that causes damage; the employer failed to satisfactorily rebut that presumption because the signalling system and the conduct (Rice's call) contributed to the accident, so the employer remains liable; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Cross-appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs