Supreme Court of Canada
Demers v. Montreal Steam Laundry Company, (1897) 27 SCR 537
Date: 1897-06-07
ALFRED DEMERS (PLAINTIFF)
Appellant;
And
THE MONTREALSTEAM LAUNDRY COMPANY (DEFENDANT)
Respondent.
1897: May 11; 1897: June 7
PRESENT:—Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN 'S BENCH FOR LOWER CANADA (APPEAL SIDE)
Appeal—Questions of fact—Second appellate court.
Where a judgment upon questions of fact rendered in a court of first instance has been reversed upon a first appeal, a second court of appeal should not interfere to restore the original judgment, unless it clearly appears that the reversal was erroneous.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side) (), reversing the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Mont real (), which had awarded the plaintiff $500 damages for injuries received by his minor daughter while in the employ of the defendant.
[Page 538]
The plaintiff's daughter was employed in the defendant's laundry in the operation of a steam mangle of which she perfectly understood the management. At the time of the accident the machine was in good working order and was not considered dangerous to operate provided the person using it exercised ordinary care and prudence. The Government Inspector of Factories visited the establishment and approved of the machine before the accident occurred and could not suggest any new guard or improvement necessary for the safety of an employee operating it. The factory was kept in the\ best possible order, was well ventilated and at the time of the accident was not unusually warm. It appeared that the victim of the accident had gone to work on the morning in question without breakfast, and was attacked by faintness, and, while in a state of unconsciousness she dropped her hand into an opening in the machine and received severe injuries by coming in contact with the heated cylinder and large revolving rollers.
Geoffrion Q.C. and Goyette for the appellant.
McGibbon Q.C. for the respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by:
Taschereau J.__This appeal must be dismissed. We are of opinion with the court below that the plain tiff has wholly failed to prove that the accident in question was caused by the negligence of the defendant. This is an appeal upon a question of fact, and though it is true, as said before us by counsel for the appellant, that his action was maintained by the court of first instance, yet his appeal here does not get much support from it. For it is settled law upon which we have often acted here, that where a judgment upon facts has been rendered by a court of first instance,
[Page 539]
and a first court of appeal has reversed that judgment a second court of appeal should interfere with the judgment on the first appeal, only if clearly satisfled that it is erroneous; Symington v. Symington (1). Now here the appellant has not only failed to satisfy us that the judgment of the court of appeal is erroneous but the evidence on record establishes clearly that the judgment of the Superior Court in his favour could never be supported.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Jasmin & Goyette.
Solicitors for the respondent: McGibbon, Hogle & Mitchell.
Email this Content