Tooke v. Bergeron, (1897) 27 SCR 567

Supreme Court of Canada

Tooke v Bergeron, (1897) 27 SCR 567

Date: 1897-06-07

BENJAMIN TOOKE (DEFENDANT)

Appellant;

And

FELIX BERGERON (PLAINTIFF)

Respondent.

1897: May 13; 1897: June 7

PRESENT:—Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ.

ON AEPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOWER CANADA, SITTING IN REVIEW AT MONTREAL.

Negligence—Master and servant—Injuries sustained by servant—Responsibility—Contributory negligence—Protection of machinery.

Where an employee sustains injuries in a factory through coming in contact with machinery, the employer, although he may be in default, cannot be held responsible in damages, unless it is shown that the accident by which the injuries were caused was directly due to his neglect.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court for Lower Canada, sitting in review at Montreal, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal ([1]), which awarded the plaintiff damages for injuries sustained by his daughter (a minor,) whilst in the defendant's employ, with costs of suit.

The judgment of the court delivered by His Lordship Mr. Justice Girouard, contains a statement of the case.

McGibbon Q.C. for the appellant. The appellant's establishment was kept in the best possible order. Cooper v. Wooley ([2]); Nichols v. Hall ([3]). The revolving shaft where the accident occurred cannot by any practicable means be guarded so as to prevent such accidents. The skirt board introduced after the accident could not prevent accidents under similar circumstances. Desroches et al. v. Gauthier ([4]). There is no proof of any fault, on the part

[Page 568]

of the appellant, to which the accident was directly due. Montreal Rolling Mills Co. v. Corcoran ([5]); Mercier v. Morin ([6]); Dominion Oil Cloth Co. v. Coallier ([7]); Sarault v. Viau ([8]); Thomas v. Quartermaina ([9]); Radley v. London and North-Western Railway Co. ([10]). The breach of a duty imposed by the " Quebec Factories Act " does not vest any right of action for damages in a person injured; Atkinson v. Newcastle etc. Waterworks Co. ([11]); it is merely an Act providing for police regulations; Wilson v. Merry ([12]); Montreal Rolling Mills v. Corcoran (1). This Act merely requires reasonable and necessary guards, such as are practicable, not that every conceivable point should be protected. The master is not an insurer of his servant's safety. Moffette v. The Grand Trunk Railway Go. ([13]); Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Goyette ([14]); Currie v. Couture ([15]). The accident could not have been foreseen or provided against by the appellant.

The factory rules strictly prohibited employees making their toilet before the closing hour, or at or near the machines. The accident was due to the employee's disobedience of rules, negligence and imprudence; " Volenti non fit injuria." Sourdat, " Responsabilité " nos. 660 & 912; 7 Larombière, Arts 1382-1383 C. N. no. 29 p. 560; Dal. Rep. Jurisp. vo. " Ouvrier " no. 104; Globe Woolen Mills Co. v. Poitras ([16]), and Roberts v. Dorion ([17]).

Beaudin Q.C. for the respondent. The appellant was in default. He had not fulfilled the requirements of the " Quebec Factories Act," and the presumptions

[Page 569]

are against him as a wrongdoer, responsibility follows as a matterof course. The case of The Montreal Rolling Mills Co. v. Corcoran ([18]), must be distinguished, for there the cause of the accident was a mystery, whilst in this case it is clearly shown to have been caused by the unguarded shaft. The facts have been found in the respondent's favour in the trial court, and in the Court of Review; these findings should not be disturbed here.

The judgment of the court was delivered by

Girouard J.—Le 8 octobre 1894, quelques minutes

avant six heures, la fille mineure de l'intimé depuis près de trois ans à l'emploi de l'appelant, fabriquant de chemises, fut la victime d'un grave et pénible accident. Attendant l'heure de la fermeture, 6 heures, p.m., elle se mit en frais de faire la toilette de sa chevelure, étant encore à son siège, en face de sa machine à coudre, mue par Ia vapeur. Malheureusement, le peigne de sa chevelure tomba, et dans la recherche qu'elle fit pour le retrouver, la chevelure, qui était pendante, fut prise par la courroie qui se trouvait au bas, sans garde, ni protection, et la conséquence fut Ia perte de la chevelure et d'une oreille. Depuis l'accident, à la recommandation de l'inspecteur provincial, une planche fut placée en avant de la machine, croyant par là même au moins diminuer le danger.

Il est en preuve que l'appelant tenait un établisse ment modèle sous tous les rapports et qu'avant l'accident, ces machines, partout où elles fonctionnaient, n'avaient pas la planche que l'inspecteur exigea après.

En supposant même que l'appelant eut été en défaut à cet égard, nous sommes d'opinion que ce défaut n'a pas été la cause du dommage. La cause principale et immédiate de l'accident, a été l'imprudence de la jeune

[Page 570]

fille, qui, contrairement aux règlements de l'établisse ment, commença à faire sa toilette au siège de son ouvrage et exposa sa chevelure aux évolutions de Ia courroie. En décidant ainsi, nous ne faisons que suivre la jurisprudence de la province de Québec, particulière ment dans les causes de Moffette v. The Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada ([19]); Sarault v. Viau ([20]); Desroches v. Gauthier ([21]); Compagnie de Navigation du Richelieu et d'Ontario v. St. Jean ([22]); St. Lawrence Sugar Refining Co. v. Campbell ([23]); Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Cadieux ([24]); Allan v. La Compagnie d' Assurance Maritime des Marchands du Canada ([25]). Nous sommes donc d'avis d'infirmer le jugement de la cour de Revision et l'action du demandeur est déboutée avec dépens devant toutes les cours.

Appeal allowed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellant: McGibbon, Hogle &Mitchell.

Solicitors for the respondent: Beaudin, Cardinal,Loranger & St. Germain.