Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al., (1995) 130 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92 (NFCA)

• Judge: Cameron, Gushue and O'Neill, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: May 10, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1995), 130 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92 (NFCA)

Bow Valley Husky Ltd. (1995), 130 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92 (NFCA);

    405 A.P.R. 92

MLB headnote and full text

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. (first appellant), Husky Oil Operations Ltd. (second appellant) and Bow Valley Industries Ltd. (third appellant) v. Saint John Shipbuilding Limited (first respondent) and Raychem Canada Limited and Raychem Corporation (second respondents)

(1994 No. 87)

Indexed As: Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al.

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

Cameron, Gushue and O'Neill, JJ.A.

May 10, 1995.

Summary:

The plaintiffs Husky Oil Operations Ltd. (Husky Oil) and Bow Valley Industries Ltd. (Bow Valley) formed the plaintiff Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. (the Bermuda company) and transferred ownership of the oil rig Bowdrill III to it. The Bermuda com­pany entered into contracts with Husky Oil and Bow Valley for the hire of the oil rig. While drilling on the Grand Banks, a fire caused damage to the rig's electrical cables and it had to be towed to port for repairs. The plaintiffs sued Saint John Shipbuilding (the builder of the rig) and Raychem Canada Ltd. and Raychem Corporation (the supplier and manufacturer of a heat trace system installed on the rig). The Bermuda company claimed for loss of revenue and damages for the cost of repairs. Bow Valley and Husky Oil claimed for loss of monies paid while the rig was out of service.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 118 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 369 A.P.R. 271, held that fault should be apportioned 60% to the plaintiffs and 40% to the defendants. How­ever, the plaintiffs could not recover from the defendants because the case was gov­erned by Canadian maritime law, which did not provide for apportionment of liability.

The defendants subsequently sought clari­fication as to how the 40% fault would have been apportioned between them if the Con­tributory Negligence Act had applied and apportionment been allowed.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 228; 369 A.P.R. 228, held that if the Contributory Negligence Act had applied, liability would have been divided equally between the Raychem defendants and Saint John Shipbuilding and the defend­ants would have been jointly and severally liable. The plaintiffs appealed the trial deci­sion.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court held that the Bermuda company was entitled to 40% of its damages.

Admiralty - Topic 6025

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Contributory negligence - The New­foundland Court of Appeal held that in a case governed by maritime law, the pro­vincial Contributory Negligence Act also applied - Alternatively, the court held that maritime law no longer included a con­tributory negligence bar - See paragraphs 210 to 217.

Admiralty - Topic 6030

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Application - While drilling on the Grand Banks, an oil rig's electrical cables were damaged by fire - The rig owner and two companies which had contracted for the hire of the rig sued the builder of the rig and the supplier and manufacturer of a heat trace system installed on the rig - The trial judge apportioned fault 60% to the plaintiffs and 40% to the defendants - However, he held that the plaintiffs could not recover from the defendants because the case arose out of negligence in federal waters and Canadian maritime law, which did not provide for apportionment of lia­bility, applied - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal agreed that maritime law applied, but held that the provincial Con­tributory Negligence Act also applied - See paragraphs 161 to 209.

Company Law - Topic 313

Nature of corporations - Lifting the cor­porate veil - Related companies - Husky Oil and Bow Valley formed Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. (the Bermuda com­pany) and transferred ownership of an oil rig to it - The Bermuda company entered into contracts with Husky Oil and Bow Valley for the hire of the oil rig - A fire subsequently damaged the rig's electrical cables - The companies sued the rig builder and others for damages - The trial judge held that the Bermuda company was contributorily negligent and that the negli­gence was attributable to all three plain­tiffs, where the Bermuda company was created as part of a joint venture by Husky Oil and Bow Valley and it was a "stand-in" for the other plaintiffs - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in finding a joint venture and that there were no grounds to lift the corporate veil - See paragraphs 24 to 52.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7603

Torts - Jurisdiction - Tort occurring on high seas - [See Admiralty - Topic 6030 ].

Contracts - Topic 2126

Terms - Express terms - Exclusionary clauses - Interpretation - An oil rig builder was sued after a fire damaged the rig's electrical cables - The builder relied on a provision in its contract which stated "[t]he remedies provided in this article are exclusive, and the builder shall have no liability whatever for any consequential loss, damage or expense arising from any defects" - The trial judge held that the provision did not cover the duty to warn that a wrap used in the rig's heat trace system was flammable or the duty to provide approvals for materials used - The plaintiffs could sue in negligence for the failure to warn and in contract or tort for the failure to provide the approvals - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that there was no action for breach of contract because there was a valid accord and satisfaction - However, the accord and satisfaction did not waive any tort action - See paragraphs 53 to 70.

Contracts - Topic 4005

Remedies for breach - Negligent breach - Availability of tort action - [See Con­tracts - Topic 2126 ].

Damages - Topic 531

Limits of compensatory damages - Remoteness - Torts - Recoverable dam­ages - Purely economic loss - Husky Oil and Bow Valley formed Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. (the Bermuda com­pany) and transferred ownership of an oil rig to it - The Bermuda company entered into contracts with Husky Oil and Bow Valley for the hire of the oil rig - A fire subsequently damaged the rig - Husky Oil and Bow Valley sought reimbursement for their day rates which they alleged they were still required to pay under their con­tract with the Bermuda company - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that Husky Oil and Bow Valley could not maintain an action for their relational economic loss - See paragraphs 137 to 160.

Torts - Topic 62

Negligence - Causation - Intervening causes - A fire damaged an oil rig's elec­trical cables - The trial judge found that the fire started when an electrical fault occurred on the rig's heat trace system causing arcing - It was likely that the thermaclad wrapping used in conjunction with the heat trace system caught fire and that fire caught onto the residue on dirty cables - The trial judge held, inter alia, that the rig owner was negligent for oper­ating the heat trace system without a ground fault circuit breaker system to prevent arcing and the builder was negli­gent in failing to warn that the thermaclad wrap was flammable - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal rejected the builder's submission that the owner's failure to use the ground fault circuit breaker system was a novus actus interveniens - See para­graphs 114 to 116.

Torts - Topic 4303

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Con­tributory negligence - Misuse - A fire damaged an oil rig's electrical cables - The trial judge found that the fire started when an electrical fault occurred on the rig's heat trace system causing arcing - It was likely that the thermaclad wrapping used in conjunction with the heat trace system caught fire and that fire caught onto the residue on dirty cables - The trial judge held that the rig owner was negli­gent for operating the heat trace system without a ground fault circuit breaker system to prevent arcing - The rig's builder was negligent in not obtaining approval certificates for materials used - The builder, manufacturer and supplier of the heat trace system were negligent in failing to warn that the thermaclad wrap was flammable - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal substantially agreed, but held that there was no duty to provide the certificates.

Torts - Topic 4335

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manu­facturers - Duty to warn users respecting dangers - [See Torts - Topic 4303 ].

Torts - Topic 4335

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manu­facturers - Duty to warn users respecting dangers - Husky Oil and Bow Valley formed Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. (the Bermuda company) and transferred ownership of an oil rig to it - The Bermu­da company entered into contracts with Husky Oil and Bow Valley for the hire of the oil rig - A fire subsequently damaged the rig - The trial judge found that thermaclad wrapping used in conjunction with the heat trace system contributed to the fire - He found that the builder, man­ufacturer and supplier of the heat trace system (defendants) were negligent in failing to warn that the thermaclad wrap was flammable - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that there was no duty on the defendants to warn Husky Oil and Bow Valley where there was no joint venture between Husky Oil, Bow Valley and the Bermuda company - However, the defen­dants breached their duty of care to Husky Oil and Bow Valley by failing to warn the Bermuda company - See paragraphs 100 to 103.

Torts - Topic 4468

Suppliers of goods - Defences - Products liability - "Learned intermediary defence" - A fire occurred on an oil rig - Therma­clad wrap, used in conjunction with a heat trace system, contributed to the fire because it was flammable - The manufac­turer and supplier of the thermaclad wrap submitted that they had no duty to warn the rig's owner of the product's flammability, where they had advised its builder - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal discussed the learned intermediary defence and held that it was not applicable - See paragraphs 97 to 99.

Torts - Topic 6600

Defences - Contributory negligence - General principles - [See Torts - Topic 6650 ].

Torts - Topic 6601

Defences - Contributory negligence - What constitutes - [See Torts - Topic 4303 ].

Torts - Topic 6601

Defences - Contributory negligence - What constitutes - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal stated that "[i]t is not contributory negligence to incur a risk rather than forfeit an advantage except where the degree of risk is out of propor­tion to the degree of inconvenience or business urgency, in which case the con­duct will not be excused..." - See para­graph 121.

Torts - Topic 6602

Defences - Contributory negligence - Application of contributory negligence statutes - [See Admiralty - Topic 6030 ].

Torts - Topic 6650

Defences - Ultimate negligence - General principles - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal stated that "[l]ast clear chance is based on two parties being negligent but only one being the real cause of the injury" - However, the court agreed with the statement that "[i]f the conduct of the parties was of such a character that its influence continued to be felt up to the moment of impact ... so that it was not possible to disentangle one from the other and point to one as being the true, opera­tive and effective cause of the occurrence, then there was contributory negligence..." - See paragraph 126.

Torts - Topic 7100

Joint and concurrent tortfeasors - Elements of joint liability - What constitutes joint or concerted action - [See Company Law - Topic 313 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kolesar Estate v. Brant (Joseph) Memorial Hospital and Malette, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 491; 15 N.R. 302, refd to. [para. 21].

Brant (Joseph) Memorial Hospital v. Koziol - see Kolesar Estate v. Brant (Joseph) Memorial Hospital and Malette.

Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital - see Brant (Joseph) Memorial Hospital.

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. and Tug Jervis Crown et al. (1989), 26 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), affd. (1990), 104 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), affd. [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 137 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 23 et seq.].

Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 54; 379 A.P.R. 54 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [paras. 24, 35].

Graham v. Central Mortgage & Housing Corp. and Bras d'Or Construction Ltd. (1973), 13 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 9 A.P.R. 183 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27 et seq.].

Commerce Commission v. Fletcher Chal­lenge Ltd., [1989] 2 N.Z.L.R. 554 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Morrison Steamship Co. v. Greystoke Castle, [1947] A.C. 265; [1946] 2 All E.R. 696 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30 et seq.].

Army & Navy Department Store Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 496, refd to. [para. 36].

Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 39, 48].

Revlon Inc. v. Cripp & Lee Ltd., [1980] F.S.R. 85 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmington Corp., [1939] 4 All E.R. 116 (K.B.), refd to. [paras. 43, 44, 45].

Alberta Gas Ethylene Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (1988), 24 F.T.R. 309; 41 B.L.R. 117 (T.D.), folld. [paras. 45, 46, 47].

B.G. Preeco I (Pacific Coast) Ltd. v. Bon Street Holdings Ltd. et al. (1989), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co., 306 U.S. 307; 96 F.2d 693, refd to. [para. 48].

Adams v. Cape Industries, [1990] Ch. 433 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12; 147 N.R. 81; 20 B.C.A.C. 241; 35 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 62, 76].

British Russian Gazette and Trade Outlook v. Associated Newspapers, [1933] 2 K.B. 616 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109, refd to. [para. 75].

Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85; 176 N.R. 321; 100 Man.R.(2d) 241; 91 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 77].

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [paras. 85, 159].

Cominco Ltd. v. Westinghouse Canada Ltd. et al. (1981), 127 D.L.R.(3d) 544 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Buchan v. Ortho Pharmaceutical (Canada) Ltd. (1986), 12 O.A.C. 361; 35 C.C.L.T. 1; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 658 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 85, 87, 98].

Lem v. Barotto Sports Ltd. and Ponsness-Warren Inc. (1976), 1 A.R. 556; 69 D.L.R.(3d) 276 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 86, 94].

Nicholson et al. v. Deere (John) Ltd. et al. (1986), 58 O.R.(2d) 53 (H.C.), affd. (1989), 57 D.L.R.(4th) 639 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

McSweenay v. Windsor Gas Co., [1942] 2 D.L.R. 154 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Dubé v. Labar, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 649; 68 N.R. 91; 1 Y.R. 81, refd to. [para. 89].

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186; 86 N.R. 241; 29 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. et al., [1972] S.C.R. 569, refd to. [paras. 95, 120].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562; [1932] All E.R. Rep. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 100].

Hodge & Sons Ltd. v. Anglo-American Oil Co. (1922), 12 Lloyd's Rep. 183 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Good-Wear Treaders Ltd. v. D & B Holdings Ltd. et al. - see Murphy and Murphy Estate v. D & B Holdings Ltd. et al.

Murphy and Murphy Estate v. D & B Holdings Ltd. et al. (1979), 31 N.S.R.(2d) 380; 52 A.P.R. 380; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Swanson and Peever v. Canada (1991), 124 N.R. 218; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 741 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. (1928), 248 N.Y. 339, refd to. [para. 109].

Wagon Mound No. 1 - see Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mort's Dock and Engineering Co.

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mort's Dock and Engineering Co., [1961] A.C. 388 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 111, 129].

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Ltd., [1967] 1 A.C. 617 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 111].

Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] 1 All E.R. 705 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 112].

Porter (J.P.) v. Irving Oil Co., [1954] 3 D.L.R. 295 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Great Eastern Oil and Import Co. et al. v. Best (F.E.) Motor Accessories Co., [1962] S.C.R. 118, refd to. [para. 125].

Dulieu v. White & Sons, [1901] 2 K.B. 669 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 128].

Canadian National Railway v. Canada Steamship Lines Ltd., [1948] 2 D.L.R. 440 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1949] 2 D.L.R. 461 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 133].

Armak Chemicals Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 292; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 675 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Ultramars Corp. v. Touche Niven & Co. (1931), 174 N.E. 441 (N.Y.), refd to. [para. 137].

East Lothian Angling Association v. Haddington (Town Council), [1980] S.L.T. 213, refd to. [para. 139].

Agwilines Inc. v. Eagle Oil & Shipping Co. (1946), 153 F.2d 869 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 140].

Candlewood Navigation Corp. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., [1986] A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 140].

Nielson v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 146].

Ship Sucarseco (1935), 51 L.I.L. Rep. 238 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 147].

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, [1990] 2 All E.R. 908; 113 N.R. 81; [1991] 1 A.C. 398 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 151].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465; [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 151].

Tate Access Inc. v. Boswell, [1991] Ch. 512 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 153].

Dominion Tape of Canada Ltd. v. McDonald (L.R.) & Sons Ltd. et al. (1971), 21 D.L.R.(3d) 299 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 157].

ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc. et al. - see Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Ter­minal Operators Ltd.

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Ter­minal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, reving (1981), 37 N.R. 396 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 162 et seq.].

Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 779; 123 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 162 et seq.].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (No. 3) (1992), 97 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 217; 308 A.P.R. 217 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 162].

Benson Brothers Shipbuilding Co. (1960) Ltd. v. Mark Fishing Co. and Ship Nem­esis (1978), 21 N.R. 260; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 527 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].

R. v. St. John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. et al. - see National Harbours Board v. Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. et al.

National Harbours Board v. Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. et al. (1981), 43 N.R. 15; 126 D.L.R.(3d) 353 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

Seafarers' International Union v. Crosbie Services Ltd. (1982), 135 D.L.R.(3d) 485 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

Sperry Rand Corp. v. Radio Corp. of America (1980), 618 F.2d 319 (U.S.C.A. 5th Cir.), agreed with [para. 171].

Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Hunt International Petroleum Co., [1978] 1 F.C. 11 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 174].

Underwater Gas Developers Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 673 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 176, 177].

Terry v. Raymond International Inc. (1981), 658 F.2d 398 (U.S.C.A. 5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 178].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [paras. 181, 205, 208].

Algoma Central & Hudson Bay Railway Co. v. Manitoba Pool Elevators Ltd., [1964] Ex. C.R. 505, affd. [1966] S.C.R. 359, refd to. [paras. 183, 198, 199].

Fraser River Harbour Commission v. Ship Hiro Maru, [1974] 1 F.C. 490 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 183, 199, 207].

Gartland Steamship Co. v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 315, refd to. [paras. 183 et seq.].

Toronto Transportation Commission v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 510, refd to. [paras. 183, 196, 197].

Sivaco Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. v. Tropwood A.G. and Owners of the Vessel Tropwood, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 159; 26 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 184].

Canadian National Steamship Co. v. Watson, [1939] S.C.R. 11, refd to. [para. 186 et seq.].

Gronlund et al. v. Hansen (1969), 4 D.L.R.(3d) 435 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 186 et seq.].

Stein Estate et al. v. Ship Kathy K et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, refd to. [para. 186 et seq.].

Peters v. A.B.C. Boat Charters Ltd. et al. (1992), 98 D.L.R.(4th) 316 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 186, 205, 206].

Shulman et al. v. McCallum et al. (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 292; 47 W.A.C. 292; 79 B.C.L.R.(2d) 393 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 186, 206, 207].

Sunrise Co. v. Ship Lake Winnipeg, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 3; 117 N.R. 364, refd to. [paras. 186, 203].

Bentley and Bentley Estate v. MacDonald (1977), 27 N.S.R.(2d) 152; 41 A.P.R. 152 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 204].

Curtis v. Jacques (1978), 88 D.L.R.(3d) 112 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 204].

United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., [1975] A.M.C. 541; 421 U.S. 397 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 213].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Shipping Act - see Shipping Act.

Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1987, c. 3, generally [para. 194].

Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act, S.C. 1990, c. 44, generally [paras. 192, 208].

Contributory Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 74, generally [paras. 199, 200].

Contributory Negligence Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. C-33, sect. 5, sect. 6 [para. 125].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2, sect. 22(2) [para. 163].

Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N-1, generally [paras. 196, 197, 198].

Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 303, generally [para. 205].

Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-38, generally [para. 198].

Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9, sect. 275 [para. 188]; sect. 565, sect. 566, sect. 567 [para. 212].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bernstein, R., Economic Loss (1993), p. 132 [para. 139].

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) [para. 34].

Blumberg, P.I., The Multinational Chal­lenge to Corporation Law (1993), gen­erally [para. 48].

Castel, J.-G., Canadian Conflict of Laws (3rd Ed. 1993), pp. 653 [para. 187]; 654 [para. 192].

Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws (12th Ed. 1993), p. 238 [para. 189].

Feldthusen, Bruce, Economic Negligence: The Recovery of Pure Economic Loss (1989), p. 225 [para. 157].

Fleming, J.G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), pp. 193 [para. 104]; 203 [para. 109].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Torts in Canada (1990), vol. 1, p. 380 [para. 126].

Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law (5th Ed. 1992), p. 133 [para. 41].

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed.), c. 10 [para. 197].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (5th Ed. 1993), pp. 305 [para. 104]; 457 [para. 89]; 567 [para. 85].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Contribution Among Wrongdoers and Contributory Negligence (1988), p. 259 [para. 125].

Owen, David R., and J. Marks Moore, Comparative Negligence in Maritime Personal Injury Cases (1983), 43 La. Law Rev. 941, pp. 941, 959 [para. 211].

Peppin, Patricia, Drug/Vaccine Risks: Patient Decision-Making and Harm Reduction in the Pharmaceutical Com­pany Duty to Warn Action (1991), 70 Can. Bar Rev. 471, p. 484 [para. 98].

Rainaldi, L.D., Remedies in Tort (1994), vol. 3, c. 20, para. 37 [paras. 94, 121].

Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Torts (19th Ed. 1987), p. 614 [para. 116].

Schoenbaum, Thomas J., Admiralty and Maritime Law (1987), pp. 92 to 94 [para. 178].

Summerskill, Michael, Oil Rigs: Law and Insurance (1979), p. 85 [para. 169].

Welling, B.L., Corporate Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 131 [para. 44].

Williston, S., and Jaeger, W.H.E., Williston on Contracts (3rd Ed. 1959), vol. 2, generally [para. 27].

Counsel:

Michael Harrington, Q.C., and Colm Seviour, for the first appellant;

Anthony Jordan, Q.C., and Thomas O'Leary, for the second appellant;

W. Ian Binnie, Q.C., and Bonita Croft, for the third appellant;

John Rook, Q.C., Edgar Sexton, Q.C., and Stephen May, for the first respondent;

Wylie Spicer and Aiden Meade, for the second respondents.

This appeal was heard on November 21 to December 1, 1994, by Cameron, Gushue and O'Neill, JJ.A., of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on May 10, 1995, by Cameron, J.A.