Curley v. Latreille

Curley v. Latreille

Majority held that on the facts the chauffeur was not acting in the performance of the work for which he was employed (he was on a private 'joy-ride' in disobedience of orders), and therefore under Art. 1054 C.C. the master was not vicariously liable; appeal dismissed and Court of King's Bench judgment affirmed.

Citation
(1920) 60 SCR 131
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Dame Annie Curley; Respondent / Defendant: Osmond Latreille
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 1920
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence (master and Servant) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed (Brodeur J. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Master and Servant, Course of Employment, Negligence, Statutory Burden of Proof (3 Geo. V., C. 19, S. 3)
Source Language
English
Torts Civil Liability Employment Law Motor Vehicle Law Vicarious Liability Master and Servant Course of Employment Negligence +1 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dame Annie Curley

Appellant / Plaintiff

Osmond Latreille

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence (master and Servant) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owner is vicariously liable for death caused by chauffeur who used automobile without consent and against orders
  2. 2 Whether the chauffeur was acting "in the performance of the work for which he was employed" (Art.1054 C.C.) at time of accident
  3. 3 Whether English authorities apply in interpreting Quebec civil code provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that on the facts the chauffeur was not acting in the performance of the work for which he was employed (he was on a private 'joy-ride' in disobedience of orders), and therefore under Art. 1054 C.C. the master was not vicariously liable; appeal dismissed and Court of King's Bench judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed (Brodeur J. dissenting).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec affirmed