Cloaks Ltd. v. Cooperberg and Davis

The plaintiff and the defendants occupied the same building, with the plaintiff occupying part of the cellar and the ground floor, and the defendants, the floor above. The defendants had installed for their own business a steam generating system in the cellar some two years ago and had it regularly serviced and repaired.

The plaintiff was furnished with the steam in return for an annual payment. In July 1949, both parties closed their establishments for the annual summer holidays. The defendants closed at noon on July 1, and the plaintiff, at 5 o'clock of the same day, it being agreed between the parties that the plaintiff could use the steam system for the rest of that day. The building was then left vacant for 10 days, and when the plaintiff returned, a flood, caused by a defective ball-float in a sealed tank forming part of the steam system, had caused extensive damages to its property.

The trial judge dismissed the action, and this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Held (Taschereau and Fauteux JJ. dissenting): The action should be dismissed.

Per Kerwin C.J. and Judson J.: The defendants have satisfied the onus placed upon them by art. 1054 of the Civil Code, which provides that a person who has a thing under his care may be relieved of responsibility for damages caused by it by showing that he was unable by reasonable means to prevent the damages.

Per Abbott J.: The liability imposed by art. 1054 C.C. is not that of an insurer.

The person can exculpate himself by proving that he was unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage complained of. In the circumstances of this case, the defendants, who were the "gardiens juridiques" of the steam generating system, have established that they were unable, by reasonable means, to prevent the damage complained of.

Furthermore, the plaintiff was precluded from recovering since the damage was a direct and immediate consequence of its failure to take the elementary precaution, before leaving the premises, of closing a valve shutting off the water supply.

Kerwin C.J. and Taschereau,

Fauteux, Abbott and Judson JJ.

Per Taschereau and Fauteux JJ., dissenting: The liability under art. M.&W.

1054 C.C. exists even in the absence of fault on the part of the person CAs L.

who has the thing under his care.

The article enacts much more than a presumption of fault; it establishes liability unless the person can exculpate himself by establishing "force majeure", "cas fortuit", AD DAvis or that he was unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage. In the present case, there was no question of "force majeure" or "cas fortuit", and the defendants have failed to establish that they had been unable by reasonable means to prevent the flooding. The contention that the plaintiff became the "gardien juridique" as the result of the permission to use the system during the afternoon of July 1, and that the plaintiff should have cut off the water supply, could not be entertained. The causa causans of the damage was the defective ball-float. The plaintiff did not become the "gardien juridique" to the extent of being obligated to inspect the functionning of the ball-float. That obligation remained constantly with the defendants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec', affirming a judgment of Smith J. Appeal dismissed, Taschereau and Fauteux JJ. dissenting.

Under art. 1054 the law is well settled that a person who has a thing under his care may be relieved of responsibility for damages caused by it by showing that he was unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage: Quebec Railway Light, Heat and Power Co. Limited v. Vandry 2 ; City of Montreal v. Watt and Scott Limited'. In my view the Que. Q.B. 811.

2[1920] A.C. 662, 26 R.L. 244, 52 D.L.R. 136.

8 [1922] 2 A.C. 555, 69 DJL.R. 1.

' respondents have satisfied the onus thus placed upon them.

The boiler system was new when purchased and had been W. recently installed by a competent and reputable plumber.

It was inspected at reasonable intervals and was repaired cm R when needed. The damage was caused by a defective ball- KeinW. float contained in a sealed tank and there was no reason for K the respondents to open the tank.

For these reasons the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

J. (dissenting):-La demanderesse-appelante et les d6fendeurs-intimbs 6taient locataires de certaines parties d'un immeuble, situ6 au num6ro 3794 Boulevard

St-Laurent dans la cit6 de Montr6al. L'appelante occupait le premier 6tage et une partie du soubassement, oii elle entreposait sa marchandise.

Les intimis, locataires au second 6tage, avaient install4 au soubassement, dans la chambre se trouvaient les fournaises, un appareil dont ils 6taient propri6taires, aux fins de se procurer la vapeur n~cessaire A leur industrie, et moyennant la somme de $300 par ann6e, ils en fournissaient egalement ' 1'appelante.

Ce systime qui comprenait une bouilloire, chauff~e par un brfileur, 6tait aliment6 par un r6servoir, oii la quantit6 d'eau nicessaire 6tait r~gularis~e automatiquement par un flotteur plac6 a 1'int6rieur, qui permettait l'afflux de 1'eau, et qui en fermait I'entr6e, lorsque le r6servoir 6tait rempli.

Au debut de juillet 1949, alors que les employes de l'appelante et des intim6s 6taient en vacances, le flotteur cessa de fonctionner, avec le r6sultat qu'une inondation se produisit, et causa ' 1'appelante des dommages substantiels, pour un montant de $13,500, que les parties en cause ne contestent pas.

L'action institude par la demanderesse-appelante, pour r6clamer ce montant, a t rejet6e par le juge au proces, et ce jugement a 6t6 confirm4 par la Cour du banc de la reine,

M. le Juge Gagn6 6tant dissident.

S.C.R.

La demanderesse fonde sa r~clamation sur les arts. 1053 W. et 1054 du Code Civil. Elle allgue la faute d'omission des intim6s qui auraient n6glig6 de faire inspecter ce flotteur, dont la d~fectuosit6 a t6 la cause de l'inondation, et qu'6tant propri6taires de ce syst~me h vapeur, dont ils Javalent la garde et le contr8le, ils doivent 6tre tenus responsables des dommages subis. Selon 1'appelante, les intimbs ne se seraient pas lib6ris de la responsabilit6 impos~e par 1'art. 1054, et n'auraient pas d~montr6 qu'ils pouvaient invoquer 1'une des exceptions que la loi et la jurisprudence apportent i la rigoureuse application de l'art. 1054 C.C. Il ne fait aucun doute que c'est un d6faut dans le fonctionnement du flotteur qui a 6t6 la cause d6terminante de cette inondation et des dommages subis par I'appelante. C'est 'application de I'art. 1054 C.C. seulement que je veux discuter pour la d6termination du present litige. D'ailleurs, h l'audition, le procureur des intim6s a 6t inform6 par la Cour, que cette dernibre ne d6sirait pas 'entendre sur la responsabilit6 qui pourrait d~couler de I'application de I'art. 1053.

L'article 1054 C.C., qui impose une responsabilit6 A toute personne qui a la garde d'une chose qui cause un dommage a autrui, a 6t6 pendant longtemps la source d'une jurisprudence h6sitante et contradictoire, mais maintenant, les principes qui doivent en r6gir I'application sont clairement d6finis.

C'est que le gardien juridique de cette chose est responsable des dommages qu'elle cause, mais il peut s'exon6rer en d6montrant I'intervention d'une force majeure, d'un cas fortuit, de 1'acte d'un tiers, ou qu'il n'a pu par des moyens raisonnables empcher le fait qui a caus6 le dommage.

Cette responsabilit6 existe mme en 1'absence de faute attribuable au gardien de la chose.

L'article 1054 idicte beaucoup plus qu'une prisomption de faute; il 6tablit une responsabilit6, i moins que le gardien ne puisse se disculper en invoquant 1'un des moyens que j'ai pr6c6demment mentionn6s. La jurisprudence sur ce point a t6 d6finitivement fix6e par le Conseil Priv4 dans la cause de Quebec Railway v. Vandryx et ce jugement a 6t6 precis6 encore par le mame tribunal dans la cause de La Ville de Montrial v. Watt and Scott Limited'. Dans la premiere de ces causes, M.& W. Lord Sumner s'exprime de la fagon suivante:

Furthermore, proof that damage had been caused by things under the defendant's care does not raise a mere presumption of faute, which the defendant may rebut by proving affirmatively that he was guiltyTaschereau J. of "no faute". It establishes a liability, unless, in cases where the exculpatory paragraph applies, the defendant brings himself within its terms. There is a difference, slight in fact but clear in law, between a rebuttable presumption of faute and a liability defeasible by proof of inability to prevent the damage.

Dans la seconde, Lord Dunedin, aux pages 562 et 563, dit aussi:

It is indeed obvious that if this was not so then the first paragraph would, as regards the damage done by things, impose a most onerous liability on those who had those things under their control.

The only addition to the views expressed in Vandry's Case, which was not necessary there but is necessary here, is that in their Lordships' view "unable to prevent the damage complained of" means unable by reasonable means. Cette jurisprudence a 6t6 constamment suivie depuis qu'elle fut fixde par le Conseil Priv6, et ses principes sont d'application quotidienne dans la province.

Dans le cas qui nous occupe, il ne peut 6videmment 6tre question de force majeure ni de cas fortuit, et je crois que les intimbs n'ont pas d~montr6, pour se soustraire h l'application de l'art. 1054 C.C., qu'il leur a 6t6 impossible par des moyens raisonnables d'empicher le fait qui a cause le dommage.

Les intimbs pr6tendent qu'au moment de leur d6part, ils avaient abandonn6 la garde et le contr6le de ce syst~me i vapeur h l'appelante, et qu'en consequence leur responsabilit6 n'est pas engagde. La preuve riv4le que vers midi le juillet, les d~fendeurs-intims et leurs employds quitthrent les lieux pour commencer une vacance qui devait se prolonger jusqu'au 10 juillet. Avant leur d6part, un nomm6 Goldbach, propriitaire de I'immeuble, et president de la compagnie appelante, rencontra l'un des d6fendeurs Davis, et il fut convenu que les employds de la compagnie appelante pourraient, dans 1'apr~s-midi du 1, malgr6 l'absence des d~fendeurs, continuer A se servir du systime A vapeur. Les employds de la compagnie appelante ne commengaient leurs propres vacances que le soir du P juillet, et durant une p6riode d'environ dix jours l'immeuble devait rester vacant. 1[1922] 2 A.C. 555, 69 D.L.R. 1.

S.C.R.

O'est la pritention des intimis que, comme r6sultat de M. & W. cette permission accordie de se servir du syst6me a vapeur, I'appelante a assum6 pour l'apr~s-midi du 1'obligation " de voir au bon fonctionnement du syst6me A vapeur, et -h ~qu'elle en avait la garde et le contr8le.

On lui reproche qu'au moment du depart le soir du elle, par ses employds, a n6glig6 de fermer le conduit d'eau prbs du r6servoir, afin d'empicher l'eau d'y p6n~trer. II est 6tabli qu'un employ6 de l'appelante a coup6 le circuit du courant 6lectrique, plac6 au second 4tage, mais que personne n'a ferm6 l'entre de l'eau, et c'est i son retour, dix jours plus tard, que Goldbach a constat6 l'inondation qui a caus6 les dommages r~clam6s. Je ne crois pas que cette omission de la part de l'appelante d'avoir ferm6 le conduit d'eau, puisse lib6rer les intim6s de leur responsabilit6 civile. Il est trbs rare que 1'on ferme ainsi l'entrde de 1'eau dans le reservoir.

Le flotteur qui 6tait A l'int6rieur du riservoir, fonctionnait automatiquement lorsqu'il 6tait en bon ordre, et fermait la valve quand il y avait une quantit6 d'eau suffisante, sans aucune intervention humaine. C'est parce que le jour de l'inondation, ce flotteur qu'on a trouv6 d6tach6 de sa tige, et au fond du reservoir, n'a pas fonctionn6 normalement que l'inondation s'est produite. S'il avait t6 en bon ordre de fonctionnement, malgr6 que la conduite d'eau au r6servoir ffit restie ouverte, il n'y aurait eu aucune p6n~tration d'eau en trop grande quantit6, pour causer un d6bordement.

C'est le fonctionnement anormal du flotteur qui est la causa causans du dommage subi par I'appelante.

Je ne puis admettre que, comme r~sultat de 1'entrevue entre Goldbach et Davis, 1'appelante ait assumb le contrdle et la "garde juridique" de ce syst6me A vapeur, au point de l'obliger A v6rifier le fonctionnement du flotteur, plac6 A l'int6rieur du r6servoir, oil il n'4tait possible d'avoir acces, qu'en levant un couvercle tenu en place par plusieurs chevilles de metal. Les quelques instructions donnies au d6part n'ont pas, A mon sens, et d'ailleurs, ceci est concid6 par I'intim6, eu pour effet d'imposer A l'appelante l'obligation de diceler les d6fauts cach6s dont ce systime A vapeur pouvait 6tre affect6. L'obligation de voir A son fonctionnement normal est toujours demeurde celle des intirm6s. Je suis done d'opinion que les intimbs ne se sont pas lib6r6s de la responsabilit6 impos6e par 'art. 1054 C.C. I.&W. L'appel doit done Stre accueilli, Faction maintenue jusqu'& concurrence de $13,500 contre les d6fendeurs conjointement et solidairement, avec int6r~ts et les d6pens de toutes lesT ma cours.

ABBor J.:-The relevant facts are set out in the reasons of my brother Taschereau which I have had the advantage of considering.

I share the view which he has expressed, that respondents' liability, if any, arose, under art. 1054 C.C., and that at the time of the flooding which caused the damage complained of, respondents were the "gardiens juridiques" of the steam generating system installed in appellant's premises. I am also in agreement with his statement of the legal principles which must be applied, in order to determine whether or not appellant can successfully invoke the liability imposed by art. 1054 C.C.

The liability imposed by that article upon a person who has a thing under his care is an onerous one, but it is not that of an insurer. He can exculpate himself by proving that he was unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage complained of-Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry' and Watt and Scott v. The City of Montreal'.

As found by the learned trial judge, the steam generating system in question was an ordinary commercial type of equipment made by a well-known manufacturer, which was in common use, and which had been installed new, by a competent plumbing contractor, a little less than two years prior to the events complained of. The system had an expected life of from 10 to 25 years and had been kept in repair and regularly serviced by competent technicians, the last occasion being a few weeks prior to the flooding complained of. The flooding was caused by the failure of a ball-float valve located in the condensation reservoir forming part of the steam generating system. The ball-float was contained in a sealed tank, and could not be seen without removing the cover, and there was proof that the weakness W. or defect in the screw part of a lever arm which entered the ;.

ball-float was a latent defect, and one that could not have been discovered by any normal inspection prior to the Abbt J. breakdown.

In these circumstances, I am in agreement with the finding of the learned trial judge and of Galipeault, C.J. in the Court' below, that the respondents have established that they were unable, by reasonable means, to prevent the damage complained of.

There is a further reason why, in my opinion, the appellant's action must fail. The steam generating system in question was equipped with a valve to shut off the supply of water to the system, and it is obvious that had this valve been closed when the premises were left unattended, the flooding and resultant damage could not have happened. The equipment was located in premises occupied by appellant. Evidence which was accepted by the learned trial judge and by the majority in the Court below, established that one of the respondents drew the attention of the president of the appellant company (who was also owner of the building) to the existence of the valve in question, and advised its use.

The respondents left the building on the morning of July 1, 1949.

Appellant continued in occupation and operated its plant for the remainder of that day, and the steam generating system appears to have functioned normally during that time.

Appellant then closed and locked the premises, retained the key in its possession, and the building was left vacant and unattended for a period of some ten days.

In my opinion, the flooding and resultant damage were a direct and immediate consequence of appellant's failure to take the elementary precaution of closing the valve in question, before leaving the premises vacant and unattended for a relatively long period of time, and appellant is therefore precluded from recovering for the loss which it sustained as a result of the flooding--See Sourdat. Responsabilit6, 6th ed., vol. 1, no. 660.