secting street. The appellant saw the respondent running and admitted that he knew his objective. Just before being struck, the respondent, on hearing the horn, had turned around. There was no jury and the trial judge dismissed the action.
The Court of Appeal held that the accident was due solely to the negligence of the defendant.
After hearing counsel on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, the Court delivered an oral judgment dismissing the appeal with costs.
H. R. Bray for the appellant.
E. Lafleur K.C. for the respondent.
DAME M.
*May 10. W. P. POWER AND OTHERS (DEFENDANTS).RESPONDENTS. .ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Negligence-Automobile-Injury to mechanic working on upper floor, when car fell down an elevator shaft-Cause of the accident-Liability of owner of the garage-Presumption of fault-Arts. 1053, 1054 C.C.
The appellant's son, a mechanic and an electrician, was working for the respondents on the third floor of their garage, repairing an automobile, when suddenly the automobile started in the direction of the open shaft of an elevator. The car fell to the bottom of the shaft and the appellant's son received bodily injuries which caused his death the same day.
Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 43 K.B. 198), that the respondents were not liable.
Held also that, upon the evidence, it could be found that the appellant's son was "the author of his own injury." As a skilled workman he should have realized the risk to which he was exposed in working upon the unbraked car while in gear, situated as it was and he must have known that the means of avoiding such risk were entirely in his own hands. But, at least, it must be held that the appellant had *PRESENT:-Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault, Rinfret, Lamont and Smith