Stephen v. McNeill
- Citation
- [1929] SCR 537
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 6 February 1929
- Posture
- Tort — Negligence / Fire (rylands V. Fletcher Invoked) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 6 February 1929
- Posture
- Tort — Negligence / Fire (rylands V. Fletcher Invoked) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Appeal dismissed because the court was satisfied on the facts that the fire resulted from Ferguson's unauthorized acts in the afternoon (ignition by blow torch), which constituted an intervening cause negating defendant's liability even if Rylands v. Fletcher were otherwise applicable.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Stephen
Plaintiff/appellant Counsel: Chas. F. R. PincottMcNeill
Defendant/respondent Counsel: R. S. Robertson K.C.; E. F. Newcombe03
Procedural history
Posture
Tort — Negligence / Fire (rylands V. Fletcher Invoked) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether defendant was liable for fire damage originating from defendant's premises
- 02
Whether the doctrine in Rylands v. Fletcher applied
- 03
Whether the fire was caused by an unauthorized act of a third person (Ferguson)
- 04
Whether findings of fact supported plaintiff's case
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiffs contended the fire originated in the defendant's building through the defendant's negligence and that they were entitled to recover for destruction of their building and contents, invoking the doctrine in Rylands v. Fletcher as appropriate.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued the evidence showed the fire started in the afternoon due to the acts of Ferguson, an unauthorized third person (use of a blow torch), which was an intervening cause absolving the defendant of liability; the Court of Appeal agreed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rylands v. Fletcher (case law)
Doctrine in Rylands v. Fletcher can impose liability for escape of a dangerous thing from defendant's premises
- 02
Common law causation principle as applied by the Court of Appeal
An unauthorized intervening act of a third person which causes the damage breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant of liability
- 03
Court of Appeal / Supreme Court reasoning
Findings of fact by the trial judge and appellate findings on causation determine outcome where they establish an intervening cause
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Appeal dismissed because the court was satisfied on the facts that the fire resulted from Ferguson's unauthorized acts in the afternoon (ignition by blow torch), which constituted an intervening cause negating defendant's liability even if Rylands v. Fletcher were otherwise applicable.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 6 February 1929
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· 6 February 1929
Stephen v. McNeill Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1929-02-06 Report [1929] SCR 537 Judges Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Lamont, John Henderson; Smith, Robert On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Stephen v. McNeill, [1929] S.C.R. 537 Date: 1929-02-06 Stephen v. McNeill 1929: February 5; 1929: February 6. Present: Duff, Mignault, Newcombe, Lamont and Smith JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Negligence—Fire—Escape of fire from defendant's premises to plaintiffs' building—Liability of defendant—Origin of fire—Unauthorized act of third person—Findings of fact. APPEAL by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[1] which, reversing the judgment of D. A. McDonald J., dismissed with costs their action against the defendant for damages for destruction of their building and contents thereof through fire, which, they alleged, originated in defendant's building through defendant's negligence. The material facts of the case are set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal[2]. At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellants, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the Court delivered judgment orally, dismissing the appeal with costs, on the ground that, assuming that the appellants, if they could bring themselves within the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher (1), were entitled to invoke that doctrine with respect to the fire, which started, as the trial judge had found, from the application of the blow torch, it was not disputed, and, of course, could not be disputed, that they must fail if these two propositions of fact were determined against them: (1) that the fire started in the afternoon and originated in some act of Ferguson, and (2) that the act of
Ferguson was the unauthorized act of a third person; and the Court had no manner of doubt that Ferguson's acts in the afternoon were the acts of an unauthorized person, and agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the most natural conclusion from all the evidence was that the fire must have occurred as the result of the sawdust being ignited on the occasion of Ferguson's visit to the cellar in the afternoon. Appeal dismissed with costs. Chas. F. R. Pincott for the appellants. R. S. Robertson K.C. and E. F. Newcombe for the respondent. [1] 40 B.C. Rep. 209; [1928] 3 W.W.R. 182. [2] 40 B.C. Rep. 209; [1928] 3 W.W.R. 182.
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.