Sir W. J. C. J.-We do not think it necessaro to call upon the counsel for the respondent in this case.
A grosser case of negligence could not be submitted for the opinion of the court. Considering the public and extensive use of elevators I think that we would be giving a most unjust judgment if we allowed this appeal. It is much like the case where a person opens his store and leaves a trap door open at the entrance.
If a customer came in and fell into the trap could it be said he was guilty of contributory negligence?
The appeal should be dismissed with J.-I should be prepared in this case to restore the judgment of the Superior Court, but as the other members of the court are of a different opinion I concur in simply dismissing the appeal with costs. I am quite satisfied that this is a case in which negligence is established beyond all question. . It is the duty of the proprietors of elevators to see that they have in their employ careful and competent employees, and if they omit this duty they are responsible to those who in lawfully using the elevators may suffer from their neglect. There is not the slightest evidence of contributory negligence.
I am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
J.-As there has not been a cross-appeal taken I am of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench should be confirmed.
J.-If there had been a cross-appeal, I might [VOL. 1V. have been disposed to restore the judgment of the Superior Court. I think there was negligence here for which the appellant was liable.
It is very much like c ss the case of a man leaving his horse on the street un- guarded, in such a case if damage results the owner is responsible. The evidence in this case fully justifies the verdict and the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Gw vmE J.-I entirely concur with my brother judges.
I think that the amount awarded by the superior court was not unreasonable.
$5,000 damages can by no means in such a case as the present be said to be vindictive damages.
It is a misapplication of the term.
Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for appellant Z, Kerr, Carter 4 Goldstein.
Solicitors for respondent: Saint Pierre, Globensky
Poirier.