Supreme Court of Canada
Thompson v. Ontario Sewer Pipe Co., (1908) 40 S.C.R. 396
Date: 1908-06-16
Luke Thompson (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
The Ontario Sewer Pipe Co. (Defendants) Respondents.
1908: May 29; 1908: June 1, 16.
Present: Girouard, Davies, Idington, Maclennan and Duff JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.
Negligence—Proximate cause—Finding of jury—Evidence.
T., an engineer, was scalded by steam escaping when the front of a valve was blown out by the pressure on it. In an action for damages against his employers the jury found that the bursting was caused by strain on the valve, that the employers were guilty of negligence in allowing the engine to run on an improper bed and that they did not supply proper appliances and keep them in proper condition for the work to be done by T., the engine-bed and room all being in bad condition; they also found that the valve was not defective.
Held, that in the absence of a finding that the negligence imputed to the employers was the proximate cause of the injury to T., and of evidence to justify such a finding, the action must fail.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario setting aside the verdict for the plaintiff at the trial and dismissing the action.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the above head-note.
Robert McKay, for the appellant.
Hellmuth K.C. and Greer, for the respondents.
GIROUARD J.—I would dismiss this appeal for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal.
[Page 397]
DAVIES J.—I agree that this appeal must be dismissed with costs. The proximate cause of the unfortunate injury which happened to the plaintiff was the blowing out of a piece of what was called a valve of the engine. The jury found the valve was not defective. They also found the defendants guilty of negligence in “allowing the engine to run on an improper bed” and also that defendants did not supply proper appliances and maintain these in a proper condition for the work to be done by plaintiff. They further found that the engine was in bad condition, likewise its “bed” and the “room.” There is no finding connecting the blowing out of the side of the valve with these neglects or failures of the defendants, nor does it appear to me there was any evidence which would justify such a finding. It is trite law that negligences or shortcomings of the defendants in any action of negligence, however numerous, will not make them liable for injuries plaintiff may have sustained unless there is a direct connection found by the jury, with evidence to sustain it, between the injury sustained and the negligence found. The facts that the “room” where the engine worked was in bad condition and that the bed of the engine was also defective and that the engine itself was in bad condition, all combined together, go for nothing unless these negligent acts were or some one of them was the proximate cause of the accident which caused the injuries complained of. No such necessary finding exists here, nor is there any sufficient evidence to sustain one. The onus lay upon the plaintiff. He has not discharged it.
IDINGTON J.—I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Duff.
[Page 398]
MACLENNAN J.—I am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.
DUFF J.—Assuming that in this case there was evidence of negligence for which in an action by the appellant the respondents could be held responsible, that is to say that from the condition of the engine and its bed it might reasonably have been anticipated that the respondents’ employees would be exposed to unnecessary danger, and that for injuries attributable to these things the respondents would be answerable in law to the appellant, still I think the appeal and the action must fail. Putting aside the defences set up I am quite unable to find in the appellant’s case itself anything upon which, acting judicially, any tribunal could properly base an inference that the accident in which he received his injuries was the result of any defect in the plant or machinery mentioned.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Johnston, McKay, Dods & Grant.
Solicitors for the respondents: Smith, Rae & Greer.
Email this Content