Nordheimer v. Alexander

Nordheimer v. Alexander

Because the wall was left in a known dangerous, unsupported condition after the fire and the appellant failed to take reasonable precautions (repair, brace or demolish) within the six days before the collapse, the collapse cannot be treated as vis major; the appellant's negligence was the proximate cause and he is liable for damages.

Citation
(1891) 19 SCR 248
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Samuel Nordheimer; Respondent/plaintiff: Charles Alexander
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1891
Procedural Posture
Tort — Property Damage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vis Major, Negligence, Damages, Duty to Repair/demolish, Case Fortuit
Source Language
English
Torts Property Law Civil Code Obligations Vis Major Negligence Damages Duty to Repair/demolish Case Fortuit

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Nordheimer

Appellant/defendant

Charles Alexander

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort — Property Damage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant can rely on vis major/case fortuit to escape liability for a wall collapse after a fire
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was negligent in failing to secure, support or demolish the dangerous wall after the fire
  3. 3 Whether formal notice to demolish was required to establish liability

Ratio Decidendi

Because the wall was left in a known dangerous, unsupported condition after the fire and the appellant failed to take reasonable precautions (repair, brace or demolish) within the six days before the collapse, the collapse cannot be treated as vis major; the appellant's negligence was the proximate cause and he is liable for damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of courts below affirmed
  • Appellant ordered to pay respondent damages of $2,638.77