On February 24, 1938, one of the elevators in use in the Hfpital du St-Sacrement, at Quebec, fell from the second floor of the building to the bottom of the elevator pit, causing injuries to a number of passengers. Under the terms of its insurance policy with the hospital, the appellant company made a settlement of the claims filed by the injured persons, and disbursed a total sum of $7,453.48 which included the costs of repairs to the elevator, for which sum the appellant took subrogation from its assured and the injured persons. The appellant company then brought an action to recover that amount against both the general contractor for the building of the hospital and the present company respondent, which under a sub-contract had built and installed in 1926 the elevator; but the appellant company proceeded only against the latter. As there could not be any contractual fault of the respondent, the action had to proceed on the basis of its delictual or quasi-delictual responsibility, and the burden of proof was on the appellant. The precise cause of the failure of the elevator, the cause of its fall, has not been clearly demonstrated; but the injuries to its passengers were probably brought about by the failure of the brake appliance consisting of safety blocks, with which the elevator was equipped, to arrest the descent of the elevator and their rupture in the emergency which arose at the time of its fall. The main ground raised by the appellant was that the respondent furnished safety blocks made of cast iron, alleged to be a defective material and ttw weak to stand a violent shock, while such appliances should, in accordance with good practice, have been fabricated of cast or forged steel, thus effecting more security. The other ground of appeal was that, for many years, periodical inspections of the equipment were made by the respondent company, and, on the very day of the accident, an inspection had been made by an employee of the respondent and, as in previous occasions, a certificate was given to the *PRISENT:-Rinfret, Davis, Kerwin, Taiehereau and Rand JJ. appellant company attesting that the elevator was in good order. The trial judge maintained the appellants' action, but the appellate court reversed that judgment, holding that the evidence of the expert & witnesses, as to the propriety or impropriety of using cast iron at the time the elevator was constructed from the point of view of GUAANTre safety, was contradictory and conflicting and permitted of no definite & conclusion upon the point.
Co. OF Held, affirming the judgment appealed from (Q.R. [19431 K.B. 511), that, under the circumstances of this case, the respondent company was . not liable.
The result from the evidence of the expert witnesses, although somewhat contradictory, is to the effect that, at the time the elevator was built and installed, safety blocks of either cast iron or forged steel were used by experienced and competent contractors and were both giving entire satisfaction. So, at that time, the respondent company was at liberty to choose between two methods of construction then usually employed by leading men of art, more so for an elevator as the one in this case, and there 'has been neither imprudence nor negligence on the part of the respondent company to have adopted one of these methods rather than the other, i.e. to have given preference to cast iron safety blocks.
Quaere whether, if the action for damages had been brought against the hospital, owner of the building, the same conclusion would have been arrived at when determining the liability of the hospital, i.e. whether the hospital, as owner of the elevator, may be held to be bound to modify its construction along with the modern improvements made from time to time for the safety of the users of the elevator.
Held, further, that the respondent company was not liable on the ground that the certificate of inspection ought to have contained a statement that the safety blocks were of cast iron or did not mention improvements made since the construction of the elevator. The duties of the inspector were to verify, as a prudent man would do, the condition of the elevator and to report any defects which may imperil the safety of the passengers. Under the circumstances of this case, to ask more from the inspector and to exact from him more than a reasonable competency and the care of a prudent man, would be tantamount to constitute him a warrantor or a re-insurer of the appellant company. Rand J. dubitante.
Per Rand J.: The inspection and certification may, under certain circumstances, extend to features of construction, and the inspection is not necessarily that of the machine or thing as it is merely. The scope of the duty of an inspector is one which, in the absence of express terms, is to be gathered from the circumstances of its being undertaken; but quaere, whether, in the ordinary case, an inspection should not require disclosure of a defect in design or material which was or should have been apparent to the inspector and which, since construction, experience has shown to be hazardous, and general and approved practice has condemned.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec (1), reversing the judgment of the Superior Court, Verret J., and dismissing the appellant company's action.
(1) Q.R. [19431 KB. 511.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S.C.R.]
The material facts of the case and the questions at issue are stated in the above head-note and in the judgments now reported.
J. Gravel K.C. and Wilfrid Desjardins K.C. for the appellant.
J. A. Gagng K.C. and Andrg Taschereau K.C. for the respondent.
J.-Il s'agit dans la pr6sente cause d'une r6clamation de 1'appelante contre 1'intimbe au montant de $7,453.48.
Le 24 f6vrier 1938, A l'H6pital du St-Sacrement, dans la cit6 de Quebec, un ascenseur est tomb6, blessant plus ou moins gravement les onze personnes qui y avaient pris place.
L'appelante, assureur de l'h6pital, paya aux victimes les dommages soufferts, obtint des regus avec subrogation contre les personnes qu'elle croyait responsables de l'accident, et institua la pr6sente action contre C. Emile Morissette Lt~e et F. X. Drolet Ltie.
La premibre de ces deux compagnies avait obtenu le contrat pour la construction de l'h6pital, en 1925, mais confia A 1'intim6e le soin d'installer les ascenseurs, et en particulier celui qui fait l'objet de ce litige. L'appelante proc6da seulement contre 1'intim6e, et la Cour Sup6rieure a accueilli son action, mais la cour d'appel l'a unanimement rejet6e. Les causes qui ont d6termin6 cet accident ne sont pas clairement expliquies. La preuve r6vile que cet ascenseur 6tait retenu h la partie sup6rieure du puits par un cable qui s'enroulait sur un cylindre, oil 6taient pratiquies des cavit6es destin6es A privenir tout glissement. Une hypothise est A l'effet que, par suite de 1'usure de ces cavit6s, le cAble a gliss6, permettant ainsi la chute de l'ascenseur. Mais ce n'est pas pour cette raison que 1'appelante pretend que la responsabilit6 de 1'intim6e est engag6e. De chaque c6t6 de 1'ascenseur, se trouvaient des freins, appel6s "blocs ds s6curit6" destin6s A 1'immobiliser dans le puits, au cas de bris ou de d6faut de m6canisme. Or, ce sont ces appareils qui dans l'occurrence se sont cassis parce qu'ils auraient 6t6 d'un matiriel d6fectueux, trop faible pour supporter un choc de cette violence. C'6tait de la fonte qu'on avait employee; on pr6tend que 1'acier efit offert plus de s6curit6.
C'est la position prise par 1'appelante dans son plaidoyer.
P Y
Cette action, dirig6e contre le constructeur, repose en premier lieu sur P'article 1053 'C.C. (Nous verrons plus tard
OF le second motif invoqu6 par l'appelante.)
Il n'y a aucune relation contractuelle entre les parties qui sont devant cette Cour, et pour que la responsabilit6 de la d6fenderesse soit engag6e, il est done nicessaire qu'elle se soit rendue coupable d'un d4lit ou d'un quasid6lit. Il faut trouver dans sa conduite 1'616ment g6n6rateur de la responsabilit6, la faute, que l'appelante a indiscutablement le fardeau de prouver. Le simple fait dommageable du bris ne peut engendrer la faute; il faut aussi un fait fautif, et ce fait n'aura ce caractbre que s'il est le r6sultat de l'imprudence, de la n6gligence, ou de 1'inhabilet6 de
1'intim6e.
L'appelante 1'a bien compris.
Aussi, a-t-elle tent6 d'6tablir cette faute, et de d6montrer par des gens du m6tier que la fonte est un m6tal cassant, moins apte que 1'acier A resister A la violence d'un choc.
Comme dans la plupart des causes de cette nature, la preuve est contradictoire, mais il ressort cependant des timoignages que si certains manufacturiers ont employ6 l'acier dans la fabrication de ces blocs, d'autres non moins exp6riment6s, 6taient satisfaits de la fonte, qui d'apris eux, donnait entibre satisfaction.
C'est ce que nous disent plusieurs t6moins dont Arthur Langevin, qui a une experience de 33 ans dans l'installation des ascenseurs, et qui sur ce point est corrobor6 par Fr6d6rick Nel Jodry, Louis Leclerc, etc. D'autres t6moine 6mettent l'opinion que malgr6 que la r6sistance de la fonte soit moindre que celle de 1'acier, cette d6ficience est compens6e par le fait que les blocs de fonte sont plus lourds et plus gros que les autres.
Quoi qu'il en soit, il semble, maintenant que les ascenseurs modernes dans les grands 6difices atteignent une vitesse de pris de 1,000 pieds A la minute, que l'acier plus r6sistant est pr6f6rable A la fonte, et qu'il a des propriotis que l'autre n'a pas. Mais il est 6galement vrai qu'en 1925,
6poque de l'installation, la fonte 6tait employee par des constructeurs riput6s, dans une substantielle proportion des cas. L'ascenseur qui est tomb6, a t construit il y a au-delA de 15 ans, et sa vitesse maxima ne devait 6tre que
120 pieds A la minute. A cette date, 1'intim6e avait done choisir entre deux m6thodes habituellement employ6es par les hommes de 'art, particulibrement pour les ascenseurs de ce genre. Est-ce une imprudence ou une n6gligence d'avoir adopt6 1'une de ces m6thodes plut6t que 1'autre, d'avoir pr6f6r6 la fonte h l'acier? Je ne le crois pas. La rigle sur ce point est bien connue. Elle a 6t6 affirm6e maintes fois par les tribunaux de la province de Qu6bec et risum6e ricemment par la cour d'appel, dans la cause de Bouillon v. Poird (1).
C'est que le praticien ou le manufacturier n'est pas tenu d'employer exclusivement le moyen ou l'instrument qui est r6put6 le meilleur, mais qu'il peut employer le moyen, le mat6riel ou l'instrument couramment employ6 dans des conditions identiques. Et, ajoute M. le juge Dorion:
Le Conseil Priv6 a aussi pos6 la mgme r~gle dans une cause oii se prdsentait 4galement une question de responsabilit6, et oi l'on voit, dans le cas qui nous occupe, la similitude des principes du droit commun et du code civil. (Vancouver General Hospital v. McDaniel et al. (2).) Parlant pour le comit6 judiciaire, Lord Alness s'exprime ainsi:
(Voir aussi Higgins v. Comox Logging and Railway Co. (3).)
Il est certain que ce qui n'6tait pas une faute autrefois peut le devenir aujourd'hui, maintenant que 1'homme d6couvre des moyens nouveaux qu'il met A la disposition de ses semblables. Certaines m~thodes employ6es dans le pass6 par nos devanciers nous paraissent d6subtes, et les d~couvertes A venir, en nous d6voilant de nouvelles notions scientifiques, modifieront forc6ment plusieurs de nos conceptions actuelles.
Ainsi, nous pouvons maintenant au moyen d'appareils pr6cis soumettre les m6taux A de hautes pressions pour 6prouver leur r6sistibilit6, et il nous est m~me permis, A 1'aide des rayons-X, de scruter l'int6rieur de la matibre pour en diceler les faiblesses et pr6venir les catastrophes. Autrefois, on ignorait ces m6thodes modernes, et en se servant des moyens et mat6riaux connus et employds dans le temps, on ne commettait certes pas une n6gligence. Cette conclusion h laquelle j'arrive pourrait peut-8tre wr ^tre modifi~e s'il s'agissait de d6terminer la responsabilitk de 1'h6pital. Nous pourrions nous demander alors jusqu'I quel point le propri6taire est tenu de munir son ascenseur des perfectionnements modernes de nature A assurer la s~curit6 de ceux qui 1'emploient. Mais nous n'avons pas a juger ici la cause de l'h6pital. C'est contre le constructeur que laction est dirig6e par des tiers, h qui il incombe de prouver la faute, et celle-ci ne peut 6tre 6tablie que par la preuve de n6gligence au moment de la construction et de
1'installation.
Je crois que cette n6gligence n'a pas 6t6
6tablie, que l'intim6e a agi avec prudence, comme tout homme raisonnable aurait agi en employant dans le temps, un matiriel habituellement employ6 dans des cas identiques, et qu'il ne pouvait pas raisonnablement pr6voir ce qui est arrive.
L'appelante base 6galement sa r6clamation sur le fait que depuis de nombreuses ann6es, 1'intim6e, pour la somme de $1.50, lui fournissait piriodiquement un certificat d'inspection attestant que I'ascenseur 6tait en bonne condition.
Le jour m~me de l'accident, 1'inspection avait 6t faite par Arthur Tardif, employ6 de 1'intim6e, et comme pricidemment, il avait donn6 un certificat h l'effet que ledit ascenseur n'avait rien de d6fectueux. Il est vrai que ce certificat n'a 6t6 d6livr6 qu'apris 1'accident, mais il 6tait semblable aux autres donnis antirieurement, et il y a lieu de presumer qu'ils sont 16galement devant la cour.
Dans sa d6claration, 1'appelante alligue que la cause de
1'accident est 1'usure des cavits qui a ditermind le glissement des cAbles. Tardif explique qu'il a v6rifi6 si oui ou non il y avait un tel glissement, et il indique m~me la m6thode employie pour faire cette constatation. La preuve r6v~le qu'au moment de 1'inspection, le cAble ne glissait pas sur le cylindre; et d'ailleurs, il n'est nullement prouv6 que ce soit la la cause premiere de cet accident qui demeure dans le domaine des conjectures.
Cependant, dans son factum, 1'appelante pr6tend que
Tardif aurait dfi lui signaler dans ses certificats que les
"blocs de s6curit6" 6taient en fonte au lieu d'6tre en acier.
Je ne puis partager cette pritention. L'inspecteur Tardif n'avait pas d'autre obligation que de vrifier, en homme I'6tat de 1'ascenseur, son m6canisme, son fonctionnement et de rapporter les d6fectuosit6s qu'il pourrait y rencontrer et de nature A mettre en peril la s6curit6 des passagers. Dans les circonstances de cette cause, demander davantage h cet inspecteur, et exiger de lui plus qu'une habilet6 raisonnable et I'attention d'un homme prudent 'lbecheresuj.dans 1'exercise de ses devoirs, serait faire de lui un garant ou un r6-assureur de 1'appelante. Je ne crois pas que le d6faut de signaler les am6liorations ou les d6couvertes des hommes de Part, incorpor6es aux ascenseurs plus modernes, soit de nature A engager sa responsabilit6 ou celle de son employeur. C'est I'ascenseur tel que construit que Tardif devait inspecter.
Je crois done que ce second motif invoqu6 par 1'appelante n'est pas fond6, et qu'en cons6quence le pr6sent appel doit 6tre rejet6 avec d6pens.
DAvIs J.-On February 24th, 1938, at about 9.30 p.m., one of the elevators in use in the hospital called "Hpital du St. Sacrement" in the city of Quebec, while carrying eleven passengers therein, fell from the second floor of the building to the bottom of the elevator pit, causing injuries to the passengers. The appellant, an insurance company, seeks to recover from the respondent, a manufacturer, the amount of damages sustained as a result of the accident. Without delaying to refer to the appellant's status as plaintiff and the somewhat unusual form of the action and several difficult subsidiary questions of law raised in the action and argued before us, one question is fundamental to the whole action, as will appear from a short recital of the facts.
The accident occurred, as stated, in 1938. The hospital had been built in 1924 and 1925 under a contract signed in August, 1924. There were to be four elevators in the hospital and the general contractor gave a sub-contract for the elevators to the respondent, the Drolet company, which company as sub-contractor built and installed the four elevators during the year 1925. There was no direct contract between the hospital and the sub-contractor. The elevators were examined and tested by the hospital authorities at the time of their installation and were in operation for about a year before they were finally accepted. These elevators were operated without interruption and satisfactorily from about the time of their installation until the day of the accident-a period of some twelve or thirteen years. This action seeks to hold the sub-contractor, the Drolet Company, responsible financially for the personal injuries suffered and expenses incurred by the passengers who were injured and for the expenses of the hospital itself for repairs to the elevator. The total sum sued for is $7,453.48. Judgment was awarded 'the appellant for this sum by the Superior Court of Quebec but was unanimously reversed on appeal and the action dismissed 'by the Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side).
No proof is given of the cause of the sudden collapse of the elevator.
All that appears to be known is that visitors in the hospital who were about to leave at the hour of the accident on the evening in question, had entered the elevator to descend from the second to the first floor when, all of a sudden, the cage fell to the bottom of the pit. The elevator was what is known as a twosystem operating elevator.
It could be operated, as it appears to have been, in the daytime by an employee of the 'hospital, and in the evenings and at off hours the passengers themselves could operate it automatically by pressing a button, a self-serving device.
All elevators appear to have some brake appliance to catch and hold the cage if it should fall beyond the control of the person at the time in charge. The common form of brake appliance appears 'to be safety blocks such as were installed with this elevator. These safety blocks, however, never come into play, are not called upon to perform their function, unless and until the elevator in some way gets out of control. It is suggested that one thing that may happen at times is that the cables which pass over wheels at the roof of the building or at the top of the elevator machinery get out of position and throw the cage of the elevator out of alignment. One may be a little surprised to learn that for the twelve or thirteen years this elevator was continually used, and at times by strangers attempting to work it themselves without the presence of an elevator man, nothing should have happened until the evening of the accident in question. As I have already said, there is really no explanation of what caused the elevator to drop that evening; but it did.
S.C.R.]
The dropping of the elevator brought into play, then, what are known as the safety blocks as a brake appliance. They appear to work automatically if and when the elevator gets out of control. On this occasion they failed to work effectively because they broke and did not operate to catch and hold the falling cage.
I should have thought that eleven passengers in the elevator at the time might have put an unnecessary strain upon its equipment, but that point, like several others which appeared to me to be of some importance, was not advanced.
It seems to be admitted that the estimated weight of the eleven passengers was within the capacity of the elevator. At any rate the safety blocks broke and undoubtedly the injuries to the passengers were directly attributable to the fall of the elevator due to the failure of the brake appliance to work.
I should have mentioned that wherever the safety blocks are located there are two of them opposite each other. I presume that if one broke, the strain on the other would break that other also; in this case at any rate both of them broke. In the very nature of things it does not appear to be known how often, if at all, the elevator had momentarily got out of control and been held by these safety blocks. It has been assumed that it never happened before.
It seems to me to be a far cry to call upon the subcontractor who manufactured and installed this elevator in 1925 to make good all the damages sustained by the passengers as well as by the hospital itself. It is admitted by counsel for the appellant that the action lies solely within article 1053 of the civil code. That means that fault must be established against the defendant-a fault that caused the accident and to which the damages are directly attributable.
What then is the fault set up against the defendant? Based on the theory that if the safety blocks had been made out of cast steel instead of out of cast iron they would have stood the strain and the accident would not have happened, it is contended that the defendant was at fault in 1925 when it manufactured and installed this elevator with safety blocks made out of cast iron instead of out of cast steel. It is said that because cast iron is more brittle and breaks more easily than cast steel which has greater strength and elasticity, cast steel is the proper material for use in the safety blocks. That theory, until recently at any rate, has not become an established practice. In the development of the art of the manufacture of elevators the evidence shows, I think, that by 1938 it had become pretty fairly agreed in the Canadian trade by & ADENT engineers and experts in the business that cast steel should be used rather than cast iron in at least high-speed elevadIE tors, which have a speed of from 600 to 900 feet per minute; this elevator was low speed, not exceeding 120 feet per minute. But that does not establish fault back in
1925. In fact the evidence shows that some manufacturers are still using cast iron instead of cast steel and that at the time of the manufacture and installation of this particular elevator it was quite common practice in Canada to make the safety blocks -of cast iron. Apart from other difficulties which arise in seeking to hold the manufacturer liable for an alleged imperfection in an article it manufactured and installed twelve or thirteen years ago and which meantime has been out of his control and has been in daily and continuous use by all sorts of people, the fundamental fact on the evidence is, as I see it, that proof of actionable fault on the part of the respondent has not been made out in this case. The safety blocks had been made according to the rules of the art and with material which at the time was generally accepted in Canada as sufficient.
If that is the correct view, then all the other matters which were debated and argued before us at considerable length and which raised many difficult questions of law, such as assignment of claims, subrogation, prescription, sufficiency of proof of damages, etc., fail to arise for consideration.
The Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side) dismissed the action with costs and I should dismiss with costs this appeal from that judgment.
J.-With some doubt, I concur in dismissing the appeal.
I desire to reserve my opinion, however, upon the view that the inspection and certification could, under no circumstances, extend to features of construction. I am not satisfied that the inspection is necessarily that of the machine or thing as it is merely. The scope of ihe duty is one which, in the absence of express terms, is to be