Stilwell et al. v. World Kitchen Inc. et al., (2014) 327 O.A.C. 146 (CA)

• Judge: Gillese, Pepall and Hourigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 19, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 327 O.A.C. 146 (CA);2014 ONCA 770

Stilwell v. World Kitchen Inc. (2014), 327 O.A.C. 146 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.002

Lanny Stilwell and Moira Neale (plaintiffs/respondents) v. World Kitchen Inc. and Corning Incorporated (defendant/appellants)

(C57348; C57372; 2014 ONCA 770)

Indexed As: Stilwell et al. v. World Kitchen Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Gillese, Pepall and Hourigan, JJ.A.

November 4, 2014.

Summary:

On September 11, 2000, Stilwell suffered severe injuries to his wrist when a Dutch oven shattered in his hands. In January 2002, Stilwell and his common law spouse (Neale) sued World Kitchen Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty. Corning Incorporated was added as a defendant in August 2008. The action proceeded to a jury trial. Corning moved to dismiss the claim against it on the basis that it was commenced after the expiry of the six year limitation period and was, therefore, statute barred.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed Corning's motion. The jury found the defendants 75% at fault for their failure to adequately warn of the dangers associated with the Dutch oven and Stilwell 25% at fault for the incident. The jury assessed Stilwell's damages at $1,132,850, including $25,000 in aggravated damages, and Neale's damages at $25,000 for loss of care, guidance and companionship. World Kitchen and Corning appealed the judgment made in accordance with the jury verdict. Corning also appealed the dismissal of its motion to dismiss.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by World Kitchen and Corning to the extent of setting aside the $25,000 aggravated damages award. The court dismissed Corning's appeal from the dismissal of its motion to dismiss.

Damages - Topic 904

Aggravation - Aggravated damages defined - The jury in a product liability action assessed damages for one of the plaintiffs at $1,132,850, including $25,000 in aggravated damages - The defendants appealed - It was common ground that the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury on the issue of aggravated damages - The judge had instructed the jury that if they found that the plaintiff suffered anxiety, nervousness and an initial fear of glass objects as a result of the manner in which the injury occurred, an award of aggravated damages was appropriate to compensate him for those injuries - The judge erred in failing to advise the jury that, in order to award such damages, they had to be satisfied that any increased injury to the plaintiff due to the manner in which the injury was inflicted had to be a result of particularly reprehensible misconduct by the defendants - The plaintiffs asserted that while the type of damages described in the jury charge were not compensable as aggravated damages, they were recoverable as non-pecuniary general damages flowing from the defendants' negligent conduct - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs' assertion and set aside the award of aggravated damages - The jury was provided with an incorrect instruction regarding aggravated damages - They were also provided with separate instructions regarding general non-pecuniary damages and awarded the plaintiff $100,000 under that heading - It was speculative to assume that had the jury been properly instructed, it would have increased the general damages by $25,000 - See paragraphs 52 to 56.

Practice - Topic 605

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - General principles - Application of limitation periods - The plaintiffs commenced a product liability action against World Kitchen in January 2002 respecting an incident on September 11, 2000 - In August 2008, they added Corning Incorporated as a defendant - Corning moved to dismiss the claim against it on the basis that it was commenced after the expiry of the six year limitation period and was, therefore, statute barred - The trial judge dismissed the motion - Corning appealed, asserting that where the identity of a potential defendant was in question, the limitation period commenced when the plaintiff had, or was deemed to have had, prima facie grounds to infer that the relevant acts or omissions were caused by a particular party - Corning conceded that the determination of when a plaintiff had, or was deemed to have, such prima facie grounds was primarily a question of fact and that the applicable standard of review was one of palpable and overriding error - However, Corning asserted that the articulation and application of that legal threshold had to be reviewed on the correctness standard - Corning asserted that the trial judge articulated too low of a standard of reasonable diligence on the plaintiffs' part in investigating its potential claim - Corning asserted that the error was extricable from the judge's findings of fact and was therefore reviewable according to the correctness standard - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the argument - Corning failed to identify a legal error in the judge's articulation and application of the applicable test - Therefore, its argument essentially amounted to an attack on the judge's factual findings that supported his conclusion that the plaintiffs had exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to identify the proper defendants and in relying on World's Kitchen's representation that they had sued the correct party - On the evidence, that conclusion was open to the judge - See paragraphs 18 to 28.

Practice - Topic 666

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting defendants - Application of limitation periods - [See Practice - Topic 605 ].

Practice - Topic 672

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting defendants - Circumstances when allowed - [See Practice - Topic 605 ].

Practice - Topic 8825.3

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding apportionment of fault by trial judge or jury - Plaintiffs commenced a negligence action related to product liability - A jury apportioned fault 75% to the defendants and 25% to the plaintiffs - The defendants appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "... it is important to have regard to two well-developed and long-standing principles of law related to civil jury trials. ... First, the standard of review of civil jury verdicts is exceptionally high. A civil jury's verdict should be set aside only where it is so plainly unreasonable and unjust that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have arrived at the verdict ... Second, a jury's verdict is entitled to a fair and liberal interpretation in light of the evidence and of the circumstances ... Answers by a jury should be given the fullest possible effect and supported, if possible, by any reasonable construction. A new trial should be ordered only where the jury seems to have confused the issues at trial, it is doubtful whether the jury paid attention to the real point in issue, and the questions answered or unanswered leave the real issue in doubt and ambiguity ... This approach to the review of jury answers is entirely justified on policy grounds. Our courts recognize that civil juries are made up of laypeople who are untrained in the law, and that allowances for this lack of training must be made in considering their answers to questions. It is also important to remember that civil juries are instructed not to give reasons for their decisions, so their answers must be read in this context." - See paragraphs 32 to 35.

Torts - Topic 61

Negligence - Causation - Causal connection - Stilwell suffered severe injuries to his wrist when a Dutch oven shattered in his hands - Stilwell and his common law spouse (Neale) sued World Kitchen Inc. and Corning Incorporated, alleging negligence and breach of warranty - The trial judge found the defendants 75% at fault for their failure to adequately warn of the dangers associated with deep versus minor scratches to the Dutch oven and Stilwell 25% at fault for the incident - The defendants appealed, asserting that there was no connection between the alleged failure to provide a better warning and the incident - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the assertion - There were three theories advanced at trial regarding the cause of the breakage: an impact hard enough to break the Dutch oven, an impact plus an internal stress, and a spontaneous break - There was expert evidence that a deep scratch could cause or be a sign of internal stress - It appeared that the jury rejected Stilwell's testimony that he did not bang the pot when he was cleaning it and accepted the middle-ground theory that the breakage occurred due to a combination of an internal flaw and an impact - That finding was open to the jury to make on the evidence before them - It was also open to the jury to find that, despite the fact that there was no evidence of anyone noticing a deep scratch, such a scratch could have been present and contributed to the internal stress - Although there was no direct evidence as to how the plaintiffs would have acted had an adequate warning been given, it was open to the jury to infer that Neale would not have purchased the product had she been adequately warned - The court was not satisfied that the verdict was plainly unreasonable and unjust or that, in reaching it, the jury was not acting judicially - See paragraphs 37 to 51.

Torts - Topic 4312

Suppliers of goods (product liability) - Negligence - Evidence and proof - [See Torts - Topic 61 ].

Torts - Topic 4364

Suppliers of goods (product liability) - Negligence - Duty of warning respecting dangers - [See Torts - Topic 61 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kowal et al. v. Shyiak et al. (2012), 296 O.A.C. 352; 13 C.L.R.(4th) 7; 2012 ONCA 512, refd to. [para. 18].

Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. (2014), 318 O.A.C. 256; 2014 ONCA 419, refd to. [para. 33].

Goodwin v. Olupona et al. (2013), 305 O.A.C. 245; 2013 ONCA 259, refd to. [para. 33].

Malone v. Trans-Canada Airlines, [1942] O.R. 453, refd to. [para. 34].

Jamieson v. Harris (1905), 35 S.C.R. 625, refd to. [para. 34].

Graham v. Regent Motors Ltd., [1939] O.J. No. 163 (H. Ct. J.), refd to. [para. 34].

Wade v. Canadian National Railway, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1064; 17 N.R. 378; 22 N.S.R.(2d) 540; 31 A.P.R. 540, refd to. [para. 36].

Counsel:

Paul J. Pape and Sanam Goudarzi, for the appellant, World Kitchen Inc.;

Young Park, for the appellant, Corning Incorporated;

Christopher Morrison and Paul J. Cahill, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on August 19, 2014, by Gillese, Pepall and Hourigan, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Hourigan, J.A., released the following judgment for the court on November 4, 2014.