Amos v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, (1976) 8 N.R. 537 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 24, 1976
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1976), 8 N.R. 537 (SCC);1976 CanLII 160 (SCC);70 DLR (3d) 741;8 NR 537;13 NBR (2d) 207;[1977] 1 SCR 500

Amos v. N.B. Power (1976), 8 N.R. 537 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Amos v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission

Indexed As: Amos v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

May 5, 1976.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, a nine year old boy, suffered electrical shock and severe burns when he accidentally touched, or the tree he was climbing touched, a high voltage wire. The tree was a poplar which had grown up under the defendant's power transmission wires and had grown around the wires. The boy was not trespassing because the tree was growing on a highway right-of-way. The trial court held the defendant power company negligent for failing to maintain and trim the poplar tree - see 9 N.B.R.(2d) 358.

On appeal to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the defendant power company was not liable because the peril could not have been reasonably anticipated. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that the accident was so fortuitous as to be beyond the range of foreseeable results - see 10 N.B.R.(2d) 644.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal was set aside and the trial court judgment was restored. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the accident was one which could have been foreseen and which was "almost inevitable when given active boys and a poplar running up through and hiding high tension wires ..." - see paragraph 18.

Torts - Topic 4532

Dangerous activities - Electricity - Power transmission lines - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a company transmitting electricity through wires along a public highway is bound to exercise the greatest possible care and to use every possible precaution for the protection of the public - See paragraph 7.

Torts - Topic 4533

Dangerous activities - Electricity - Power transmission lines - Maintenance - Foreseeability - Duty of care respecting the maintenance of trees growing under high voltage wires - A nine year old boy climbed a tree and its branches touched a high voltage wire which resulted in the boy suffering electrical shock and severe burns - The Supreme Court of Canada held the defendant utility liable to the plaintiff - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the accident was one which could be foreseen where the branches of the tree were hiding high voltage wires - See paragraph 18.

Cases Noticed:

Gloster v. Toronto Electric Light Company, [1907] 38 S.C.R. 27, folld. [para. 7].

Moule v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 305, dist. [paras. 8, 21].

Buckland v. Guildford, [1949] 1 K.B. 410, folld. [para. 16].

Counsel:

J.R.M. Gautreau, for the appellants;

David T. Hashey, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 24, 1976. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on May 5, 1976 and the following opinions were filed:

SPENCE, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 20.

RITCHIE, J. - see paragraphs 21 and 22.

LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, AND DE GRANDPRE JJ. concurred with SPENCE J.