- W. W. SALES LIMITED (DEFENDANT) .... APPELLANT; May 18,19. AND
Oct.6. THE CITY OF EDMONTON
(PLAIN-I
RESPONDENT. TIFF)
..............................
W. W. SALES LIMITED (DEFENDANT)..
. APPELLANT; AND
ARMSTRONG - COSANS
LIMITED I
RESPONDENT. (PLAINTIFF)
.......................
f
W. W. SALES LIMITED (DEFENDANT) .... APPELLANT; AND
B. SHELDON'S
LIMITED
(PLAIN- RESPONDENT. TIFF) .
.............................
f
W. W. SALES LIMITED (DEFENDANT) ....
APPELLANT; AND
ROBERT ARKINSTALL
(PLAINTIFF)
..
. RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION THE SUPREME
Respondents sued for damages -to their properties from a fire which they alleged was caused by the negligence of servants of the appellant company. The latter's manager ordered two of its servants to clean out the basement of its store and place the rubbish in an ash can outside the -premises. The employees did this and then, without any special instructions in that regard, tried to burn the rubbish. The fire spread out of control and damaged the property of the respondents. The trial judge held that the evidence, as to the actions of one of the servants and as to the instructions given him and the other servant, showed that the former had ignited the fire in the can, that in doing so he was negligent, and that he was at the time acting within the scope of his employment. The judgment of the trial judge was affirmed by the appellate court.
Held, affirming the judgment appealed from (119421 1 W.W.R. 375), that the appellant company was liable for the damage caused by the fire.- S.C.R.]