Hanson v. City of St. John’s, [1974] S.C.R. 354 (1973)

Extract

---

Hanson v. City of St. John’s, [1974] S.C.R. 354 (1973)

Supreme Court of Canada

Hanson v. City of St. John's, [1974] S.C.R. 354

Date: 1973-05-07

John R. Hanson et al. (Plaintiffs) Appellants;

and

The City of Saint John and the Saint John Horticultural Association (Defendants) Respondents,

1972: October 24, 25; 1973: May 7.

Present: Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon and Laskin JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW BRUNSWICK, APPEAL DIVISION

Negligence-Occupier's liability-Licensees-Toboggan slide in park owned by horticultural association-Improvements to slide undertaken by city-Sudden drop at foot of slide-Toboggans landing on ice-covered lake-Injuries sustained by plaintiffs-City responsible for faulty design of slide-Association not negligent-Bullock order for costs.

The plaintiffs were injured in toboggan accidents which occurred at or near the foot of a slide in a park owned by the defendant horticultural association. The plaintiffs contended that the accidents were occasioned by the fact that at the time they occurred the conditions at the foot of the slide were such that there was a drop of some three or four feet from the end of the slide on to a frozen lake and that it was because the plaintiffs' toboggans were propelled at a high speed from the end of the slide on to the frozen lake that they sustained the injuries of which they complained. Following upon a request of the association for improvements, employees of the works department of the defendant city had been engaged in the clearing and widening of the slide sometime before the accidents under the direction of the city engineer.

The plaintiffs' claims for damages were dismissed by the trial judge as against the city and allowed as against the association. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the association's appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs then appealed to this Court.

Held (Judson and Ritchie JJ. dissenting with respect to the appeal as against the city and Spence and Laskin JJ. dissenting with respect to the appeal as against the association): The appeal should be allowed as against the city and dismissed as against the association and the appellants should be allowed to add to the judgment against the city all costs payable by them to the association.

Per Pigeon J.: At the speed to be anticipated on the slide in question, the abrupt change of slope near the lake edge constituted a grave danger. It was a danger which, on his own admission, the engineer responsible for the improvements on the slide fully appreciated. Unfortunately he badly miscalculated when specifying a 3 to 1 slope and this miscalculation was negligence for which the city was answerable. In exonerating the city from any responsibility the Courts below failed to appreciate the legal consequences of facts proved beyond question.

With respect to the association, it was clear on the evidence that its responsible officials did not have actual knowledge of the danger until after all the accidents had occurred. It was, therefore, not in breach of its duty to the plaintiffs as licensees. The improvements made by the city were done under professional supervision and it could properly rely on tha...

See the full content of this document

---