London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd

Last updated
London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 29, 1991
Judgment: October 29, 1992
Citations [1992] 3 SCR 299
Docket No. 21980
Holding
When parties enter into commercial agreements and decide that one of them and its employees will benefit from limited liability, the doctrine of privity should not stand in the way of commercial reality and justice.
Court membership
Puisne JusticesLa Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ
Reasons given
MajorityIacobucci J, joined by L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, and Cory JJ
ConcurrenceMcLachlin J
Concur/dissentLa Forest J
Stevenson J took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 [1] is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

Contents

Background

Kuehne & Nagel was storing a transformer owned by London Drugs valued at $32,000. The agreement between the parties included a limitation of liability clause which limited liability for damage to the transformer to $40. Two employees were moving the transformer with a forklift and negligently dropped it. [2]

London Drugs sued the two employees on the basis that they owed a separate duty of care and could not seek protection under the contract.

The courts below

London Drugs succeeded at first instance at the British Columbia Supreme Court, [3] where the trial judge found the employees personally liable for the full amount of the damages, limiting the company's liability to $40. That judgment was reversed in part on appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, [4] where, in a majority decision, the employees' liability was reduced to $40.

London Drugs appealed this decision and the respondent employees cross‑appealed, arguing that they should be completely free of liability.

At the Supreme Court of Canada

The appeal was dismissed in a 6–0 ruling, while the cross-appeal was dismissed 5–1.

The majority opinion

Iacobucci J, writing for the majority, observed:

There is no general rule in Canada to the effect that an employee acting in the course of his or her employment and performing the "very essence" of his or her employer's contractual obligations with a customer, does not owe a duty of care, whether one labels it "independent" or otherwise, to the employer's customer. The mere fact that the employee is performing the "very essence" of a contract between the plaintiff and his or her employer does not, in itself, necessarily preclude a conclusion that a duty of care was present.

While the employees were liable in negligence, they were able to gain protection under the contract. Employees are able to gain protection where:

  1. the limitation of liability clause must, either expressly or impliedly, extend its benefit to the employee(s) seeking to rely on it; and
  2. the employee(s) seeking the benefit of the limitation of liability clause must have been acting in the course of their employment and must have been performing the very services provided for in the contract between their employer and the plaintiff when the loss occurred. [5]

Concurrence by McLachlin

McLachlin J concurred, but for different reasons. Tort and contract constitute separate legal regimes, and the appellant's action against the employees in this case is necessarily in tort, since there was no contract between them. The theory of voluntary assumption of the risk permits an employee sued in tort to rely on a term of limitation in his employer's contract. The plaintiff, having agreed to the limitation of liability vis à vis the employer, must be taken to have done so with respect to the employer's employees.

Concurrence/dissent by La Forest

La Forest J, in dissent, believed the respondent employees did not owe any duty of care to the appellant in the circumstances of this case. He applied the "Anns test" as formulated by the House of Lords, which asks:

  • Is there a sufficient relationship of proximity, such that carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter (in which case, a prima facie duty of care arises)?
  • If so, are there any considerations which ought to reduce or limit
  • the scope of the duty,
  • the class of person to whom it is owed, or
  • the damages to which a breach of it may give rise?

In the present case, the first question is answered in the affirmative. As to the second, he felt that the vicarious liability regime is best seen as a response to a number of policy concerns:

  • It is not merely a mechanism by which the employer guarantees the employee's primary liability, but has the broader function of transferring to the enterprise itself the risks created by the activity performed by its agents.
  • Elimination of the possibility of the employee bearing the loss is not only logically compatible with the vicarious liability regime, it is practically compelled by the developing logic of that regime.
  • The employer will almost always be insured against the risk of being held liable to third parties by reason of his vicarious liability. Therefore, its cost is thus internalized to the profitable activity that gives rise to it.
  • There is no requirement for double insurance, covering both the employee and his employer against the same risk.
  • Further, imposing tort liability on the employee in these circumstances cannot be justified by the need to deter careless behaviour. An employee subjects himself to discipline or dismissal by a refusal to perform work as instructed by the employer, and the employer is free to establish contractual schemes of contribution from negligent employees.
  • Finally, the elimination of employee liability will have no impact on the plaintiff's compensation in the vast majority of cases.

The employee remains liable to the plaintiff for his independent torts. An independent tort may fall within or outside the range of the employer's liability under the vicarious liability regime. In that regard, the following questions must be answered:

  • Is the tort alleged against the employee an independent tort or a tort related to a contract between the employer and the plaintiff? In answering this question, it is legitimate to consider the scope of the contract, the nature of the employee's conduct and the nature of the plaintiff's interest.
  • If the alleged tort is independent, the employee is liable to the plaintiff if the elements of the tort action are proved. The liability of the company to the plaintiff is determined under the ordinary rules applicable to cases of vicarious liability.
  • If the tort is related to the contract, the next question to be resolved is whether any reliance by the plaintiff on the employee was reasonable. The question here is whether the plaintiff reasonably relied on the eventual legal responsibility of the defendants under the circumstances. [6]

Since the conduct of the employees was covered by the contract, the plaintiffs were considered to have voluntarily assumed the risk of their tortious behaviour. The plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied on the employees and, thus, the employees were shielded from liability. [7]

Aftermath

There has been much discussion about the nature of the ruling in two areas:

The majority ruling, which shielded the employees' liability by virtue of contractual terms, has invited discussion as to the effect where such shielding is not in place. [8] [9] [10]

La Forest J's discussion of vicarious liability has influenced subsequent Supreme Court decisions on that doctrine, most notably Bazley v Curry , [11] which has had significant influence in the jurisprudence of other Commonwealth jurisdictions including the UK House of Lords in its ruling in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22.

See also

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.

Assumption of risk is a defense, specifically an affirmative defense, in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of their injury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd and Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 is a joined English contract law case on causation and remoteness of damage. It arose out of the property crash in the early 1990s, whereby banks were suing valuers for overpricing houses in order to recover the lost market value. Owners themselves often had little or no money, since they had fallen victim to negative equity, so mortgage lenders would pursue a valuer instead to recover some losses. The legal principle arising from the case is often referred to as the "SAAMCO principle".

<i>Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd</i>

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

<i>Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd</i>

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 is an English tort law case, creating a new precedent for finding where an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of their employees. Prior to this decision, it had been found that sexual abuse by employees of others could not be seen as in the course of their employment, precluding recovery from the employer. The majority of the House of Lords however overruled the Court of Appeal, and these earlier decisions, establishing that the "relative closeness" connecting the tort and the nature of an individual's employment established liability.

<i>Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd</i>

Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716 is an English tort law case, establishing that sub-bailees are liable for the theft or negligence of their staff. Both Lord Denning and Lord Diplock rejected the idea that a contract need exist for a relationship of bailor and bailee to be found. Accordingly, it established an authority in vicarious liability, that employers are fully liable for the thefts - by employees - of goods that they have a duty to take care of.

<i>Bazley v Curry</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of vicarious liability where the Court held that a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable in tort law for sexual misconduct by one of its employees. The decision has widely influenced jurisprudence on vicarious liability outside of Canada.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

<i>Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd</i>

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd[2005] EWCA Civ 1151 is an English tort law and UK labour law case, which held that a worker can have more than one employer at the same time, who will be vicariously liable for the worker.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters, an important case in the South African law of delict, was heard in the Constitutional Court on August 17, 2006. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J and Kondile AJ presided, handing down judgment on November 30. W. Trengove SC and RT Williams SC appeared for the applicant, and HP Viljoen SC and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The State Attorneys, Cape Town, represented the applicant; the respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville.

<i>Kondis v State Transport Authority</i> Australian High Court case

Kondis v State Transport Authority, was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 16 October 1984. It concerned the liability of an employer for the injury of an employee, and specifically whether the duty of care to provide a safe system of work could be delegated. It had been challenged on the basis that the person whose negligence had directly caused the injury was not actually an employee, but an independent contractor, and the duty of care to provide a safe system of work had been delegated to them at the time of the injury. However, it was found that the duty of care could not be delegated in certain cases, and the employer was found liable.

<i>Downtown Eatery (1993) v. Ontario</i> Case brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Downtown Eatery (1993) v. Ontario was a case brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario pertaining to the structure of business hierarchies and relationships as a form of creditor proofing business assets, and specifically the common employer doctrine. It considered the oppression remedy of the Business Corporations Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nondelegable obligation</span>

A nondelegable obligation is a legal obligation or duty which cannot legally be delegated or, if delegated, the principal is still liable for said obligation. They are also known as non-assignable duties or obligations. These obligations cannot be delegated due to stipulations of public policy, statute, or common law. Nondelegation can also be written into a contract even when it otherwise would not apply. There are many types of automatically nondelegable obligations, including those involving trained professionals and those with a medical or fiduciary duty. Political duties are also often considered nondelegable. When an obligation is nondelegable, the obligee is entitled to specific performance by the obligor.

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 56 is an English tort law case, concerning enterprise liability.

References

  1. ↑ Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM  and CanLII
  2. ↑ At paras 155-57.
  3. ↑ (1986), 2 BCLR (2d) 181 (Sup Ct), [1986] 4 WWR 183
  4. ↑ (1990), 45 BCLR (2d) 1 (CA), 70 DLR (4th) 51, [1990] 4 WWR 289, 2 CCLT (2d) 161, 31 CCEL 67
  5. ↑ At para 257.
  6. ↑ At para 151.
  7. ↑ At paras 146–47, 152.
  8. ↑ Markus Koehnen (2002-05-08). "Liability of Directors and Officers for Corporate Torts" (PDF). McMillan LLP. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-11-19. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
  9. ↑ David Wende (January 2005). "Liability of Chartered Accountants in Private Industry" (PDF). Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang LLP. Retrieved 2012-04-18.[ dead link ]
  10. ↑ William R. Gale (January 2005). "Hiding behind the corporate veil: the thin company line". Grosman, Grosman & Gale LLP. Archived from the original on 2012-08-19. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
  11. ↑ [1999] 2 SCR 534 at paras 14, 28, 31.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.