School District of Assiniboine South No. 3 v. Hoffer and Greater Winnipeg Gas Co., (1973) 1 N.R. 32 (SCC)

• Judge: Spence and Pigeon, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Tuesday November 20, 1973
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1973), 1 N.R. 32 (SCC);[1973] CarswellMan 66;[1973] SCJ No 48 (QL);[1973] 6 WWR 765;40 DLR (3d) 480;1 NR 32;1973 CanLII 1313 (SCC)

Assiniboine South School Bd. v. Hoffer (1973), 1 N.R. 32 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

School District of Assiniboine South No. 3 v. Hoffer and Greater Winnipeg Gas Company

Indexed As: School District of Assiniboine South No. 3 v. Hoffer and Greater Winnipeg Gas Co.

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Judson, Ritchie,

Spence and Pigeon, JJ.

November 20, 1973.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages for property damage to a school building caused by an explosion. The explosion was caused by a gas leak which arose when a snowmobile struck a gas pipe riser near the outside wall of a school building. The gas pipe riser was unprotected. The snowmobile struck the riser after it ran away from a 14 year old boy who was in the process of starting the snowmobile. The 14 year old boy started the snowmobile by rapping a rag around the gas throttle and by using his two hands to pull on the starter rope. The boy's father instructed the boy to start the machine in such a manner when it was cold. The boy disregarded the father's instruction to put the snowmobile on a kick stand when starting it in such a manner so that the snowmobile would not run away when it started. The trial judge held the father and the son and the gas company jointly and severally liable for the damages to the plaintiff's school building - see 16 D.L.R.(3d) 703; [1971] 1 W.W.R. 1. On appeal to the Manitoba Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the liability of the defendants was affirmed. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal was affirmed. The judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal is set out below following the oral judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Torts - Topic 55

Negligence - Causation - Whether a father was liable for the negligent operation of a snowmobile by his 14 year old son - The father instructed the son to start the snowmobile in a manner that was fraught with danger - The boy disregarded the father's instructions which led to an accident - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the negligence and responsibility of the father for the plaintiff's damages - See paragraph 6.

Torts - Topic 60

Negligence - Causation - Unforseeable consequences of the defendant's conduct - The defendant started a snowmobile which ran away from him and struck and severed a gas pipe riser beside the building which led to the escape of gas and an explosion inside the building - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the defendant's liability - See paragraphs 8 to 15 - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the extent of the damage need not be foreseeable if physical damage is foreseeable - See paragraph 14.

Negligence - Topic 62

Negligence - Causation - Intervening causes - The defendant started a snowmobile which ran away from the defendant and struck and severed a gas pipe riser beside a building which led to the escape of gas and an explosion inside the building - The gas pipe riser was constructed in a negligent manner by the gas company - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the liability of the snowmobile operator and that the negligence of the gas company was not an "intervening cause" - See paragraphs 16 and 17.

Torts - Topic 41

Standard of care - Public utilities - Construction by a gas company of gas pipe lines - Whether a gas pipe riser beside a school building was adequately protected - A snowmobile struck and severed the gas pipe riser which led to the escape of gas and an explosion inside the school building - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed liability of the gas company for failure to exercise reasonable care in the construction of the gas pipe riser - See paragraphs 19 to 22 - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the duty to take protective measures increases with the risk - See paragraph 20.

Evidence - Topic 2702

Special modes of proof - View out of court - The trial judge viewed the scene of an accident - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that a view of the scene of an accident should be for the sole purpose of better understanding the evidence - See paragraph 24.

Cases Noticed:

Dixon v. Bell (1816), 5 M. & S. 198; 105 E.R. 1023, folld. [para. 6].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562, folld. [para. 7].

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Ltd. (The "Wagon Mound" (No. 1)), [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 1 All E.R. 404, refd to. [para. 8].

King v. Phillips, [1953] 1 All E.R. 617, folld. [para. 8].

Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd., [1921] 3 K.B. 560, folld. [para. 9].

Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] A.C. 837; [1963] 1 All E.R. 705, folld. [para. 11].

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Ltd. et al. (The "Wagon Mound" (No. 2)), [1967] 1 A.C. 617; [1966] 2 All E.R. 709, folld. [para. 12].

S.C.M. (U.K.) Ltd. v. W.J. Whittall & Son Ltd., [1970] 3 All E.R. 245, folld. [para. 13].

British Celanese, Ltd. v. A.H. Hunt (Capacitators) Ltd., [1969] 2 All E.R. 1252, folld. [para. 13].

Bradford v. Robinson Rentals, Ltd., [1967] 1 All E.R. 267, folld. [para. 13].

McKenzie et al. v. Hyde et al. (1967), 64 D.L.R.(2d) 362; 61 W.W.R. 1; 66 D.L.R.(2d) 655; 63 W.W.R. 128 (Man. C.A.), folld. [para. 13].

Jones v. Wabigwan, 8 D.L.R.(3d) 424; [1970] 1 O.R. 366, folld. [para. 13].

Chambers v. Murphy, [1953] 2 D.L.R. 705; [1953] O.W.N. 339, folld. [para. 24].

Counsel:

M.J. Arpin, Q.C., for Michael Hoffer and Ephriam Hoffer;

C.R. Huband, for the School Division of Assiniboine South No. 3;

G.O. Jewers, for the Greater Winnipeg Gas Co. Ltd.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by Martland, J. [orally]: