Canadian National Railway Co. v. Hammill, (1973) 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340 (PEISC)

• Judge: Nicholson, J.
• Case Date: September 27, 1973
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (1973), 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340 (PEISC)

CNR v. Hammill (1973), 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340 (PEISC)

MLB headnote and full text

Canadian National Railway Company v. Hammill

Indexed As: Canadian National Railway Co. v. Hammill

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

At Trial

Nicholson, J.

September 27, 1973.

Summary:

This action arose out of a claim by the plaintiff C.N.R. for damages resulting from a fire in one of the plaintiff's refrigeration cars. The defendant potato dealer under a prior arrangement with the plaintiff requested that a refrigeration car be delivered to the defendant's siding, so that it could be loaded with the defendant's potatoes for shipment. The car was delivered and partially loaded on Saturday, with loading to be completed on the following Monday. The defendant left the car unlocked and unattended over the weekend. On Sunday the car was damaged by a fire which started inside the car. The plaintiff brought an action in negligence against the defendant for damages resulting from the fire. The Supreme Court allowed the action and awarded the plaintiff $3,823.02 damages.

The Supreme Court held that the delivery of the refrigeration car to the defendant constituted a bailment for hire [paragraphs 6 to 10] and that the defendant was under an obligation to take reasonable care of the car [paragraph 11].

The Supreme Court held that the onus was on the defendant to show that the damage to the refrigeration car was not caused through the defendant's neglect [paragraphs 12 to 15, 19, 25 and 26]. The Supreme Court held that the defendant did not discharge the onus. The Supreme Court held further that the maxim res ipsa loquitur was applicable and held that the fire in the refrigeration car would not ordinarily happen if the defendant used proper care [paragraphs 15 to 18].

Bailment - Topic 2010

Liability of bailee - Burden of proof - Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the onus was on the defendant bailee to show that the damage to the bailed goods was not caused through his neglect - Paragraphs 12 to 15, 19, 25 and 26.

Bailment - Topic 2200

Liability of bailee - Bailment for benefit of bailor and bailee - Bailor gave possession of a railway boxcar to the bailee to load the bailee's goods for transport - Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the bailee was obligated to take reasonable care of the chattel bailed and that the bailee was not liable for loss or injury in the absence of negligence Supreme Court held bailee liable for damage to the boxcar - Paragraph 11.

Bailment - Topic 2405

Estoppel of bailee - Title of bailor - Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that a bailee was estopped from questioning the title of the bailor to the goods bailed - Paragraph 7.

Bailment - Topic 2751

Liability of bailor - Bailment for benefit of bailor and bailee - Hire of chattel - Bailor gave possession of a railway boxcar to the bailee to load the bailee's goods for transport - Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the bailor for hire was under an obligation to ascertain that the chattel was reasonably fit and suitable for the purpose of the hirer - Paragraph 10.

Bailment - Topic 4110

Bailment for benefit of bailor and bailee - Hire of chattel - Definition - Bailor gave possession of a railway boxcar to the bailee to load the bailee's goods for transport - Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the arrangement constituted a contract for the hire of the chattel - Paragraphs 6 to 10.

Torts - Topic 165

Negligence - Res ipsa loquitur - Railroad boxcar unexplainedly caught fire while in the custody of the defendant - Prince Edward Island Supreme Court applied the maxim res ipsa loquitur and found that the fire would not ordinarily happen if the defendant used proper care - Supreme Court held defendant liable - Paragraphs 15 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Biddle v. Bond, [1895] A.C. 47, appld. [para. 7].

Ross v. Edwards (1895), 73 L.T. 100, ref'd to. [para. 7].

McCreary v. Therrian Construction Co. Ltd. & Ano., [1952] 1 D.L.R. 153, appld. [para. 12].

Cooper v. Barton (1810), 3 Camp. 5n; 170 E.R. 1287, not folld. [para. 12].

Reynolds v. Roxburgh (1886), 10 O.R. 649, not folld. [para. 12].

McKenzie v. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. (1921), 20 O.W.N. 406, not folld. [para. 12].

Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Oxford Garage (1921), 21 O.W.N. 218, not folld. [para. 12].

Aselstine v. McAnally, [1950] O.W.N. 229, not folld. [para. 12].

Bennett v. Fraser Valley Builders, [1952] 4 D.L.R. 834, appld. [para. 12].

Piper v. Geldart, [1954] 2 D.L.R. 97, appld. [para. 12].

Catalytic Construction Co. of Canada v. Austin Co. Ltd. (1957), 8 D.L.R.(2d) 136, appld. [para. 12].

United Motor Services Inc. v. Hutson, [1937] S.C.R. 294 folld. [para. 16].

Counsel:

F. A. Large, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Neil R. MacLeod, Q.C. and G. Bruce MacDonald, Q.C., for the defendant.