St. Lawrence Flour Mills Co. v Stewart
- Citation
- (1917) 55 SCR 624
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 28 November 1917
- Posture
- Master and Servant / Workplace Injury (tort Negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side (quebec)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 28 November 1917
- Posture
- Master and Servant / Workplace Injury (tort Negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side (quebec)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The employer breached its duty to provide safe machinery by failing to install a guard; the employee was contributorily negligent but that did not absolve the employer and damages should be reduced accordingly — award of $2,000 upheld; appeal dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side (which had awarded $2,000 to the respondent for contributory negligence) affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Judgment of Court of Appeal maintained awarding $2,000 to respondent
02
Material facts
Parties
St. Lawrence Flour Mills Company
Appellant Counsel: J. E. Martin K.C.; John HackettStewart
Respondent Counsel: Vipond K.C.Amounts and remedies
- Claimed Damages: CAD 10,000
- Awarded Damages: CAD 2,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Master and Servant / Workplace Injury (tort Negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side (quebec)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether employer was liable for failure to provide a guard on a dangerous machine
- 02
Whether employee's long-term control and awareness of risk constituted contributory negligence
- 03
Appropriate apportionment of damages for contributory negligence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued it was not liable because the respondent had long had control of the saw, was aware of the need for a guard and never requested one, and therefore the accident was the respondent's fault.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued the accident was caused by absence of a saw guard which the employer should have provided and sought $10,000 in damages.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law — master and servant duty as applied by appellate courts
Employer has a duty to provide safe plant and appliances and to guard dangerous machinery.
- 02
Common law principle applied by the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada
Contributory negligence by an employee reduces recoverable damages but does not necessarily absolve employer liability where employer's duty is breached.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The employer breached its duty to provide safe machinery by failing to install a guard; the employee was contributorily negligent but that did not absolve the employer and damages should be reduced accordingly — award of $2,000 upheld; appeal dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Dissent by Davies J. was recorded but did not alter the majority conclusion.
- Long term control of a machine by an employee and knowledge of risk do not automatically relieve an employer of the duty to provide guards on dangerous machinery.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side (which had awarded $2,000 to the respondent for contributory negligence) affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Judgment of Court of Appeal maintained awarding $2,000 to respondent
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 28 November 1917
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 28 November 1917
St. Lawrence Flour Mills Co. v Stewart Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1917-11-28 Report (1917) 55 SCR 624 Judges Fitzpatrick, Charles; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Duff, Lyman Poore; Anglin, Francis Alexander On appeal from Quebec Subjects Labour law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada St. Lawrence Flour Mills Co. v Stewart, (1917) 55 S.C.R. 624 Date: 1917-11-28 St. Lawrence Flour Mills Company v. Stewart. 1917: October 26; 1917: November 28. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Davies, Idington, Duff and Anglin JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC. Master and servant—Liability—Saw-guard—Contributory negligence. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side[1], reversing the judgment of Greenshields J. at the trial and maintaining the action of the plaintiff-respondent with costs. The respondent, a millwright, was employed as such by the appellant in a large flour mill. While he was operating a circular saw, his left hand was suddenly turned into the teeth of the saw. The respondent took an action in damages for $10,000.00, alleging that the accident occurred because there was no guard over the saw, when the appellant should have had one installed. The appellant denied any liability for the reasons that the respondent had, for a long time before the accident, control of the saw, that he was
himself aware of the necessity of a guard and that he had never complained or asked that one should be installed. The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the respondent was alone responsible for the accident. But this judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal who held that the appellant was also, though in a less degree, liable and, on account of contributory negligence, assessed damages at $2,000.00. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which, after having heard counsel on behalf of both parties, reserved judgment and subsequently dismissed the appeal, Davies J. dissenting. Appeal dismissed with costs. J. E. Martin K.C. and John Hackett for the appellant. Vipond K.C. for the respondent. [1] Q.R. 26 K.B. 476.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.