Continental Stress Relieving v. Stang (1991), 115 A.R. 90 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Continental Stress Relieving Services Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Blake Stang, Gundi Rien and James Richas (defendants)
Continental Stress Relieving Services Ltd. and Brimstone Furnace Works Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Blake Stang, Gundi Rien and James Richas (defendants)
(Action Nos. 8503 30160 and 8703 00411)
Indexed As: Continental Stress Relieving Services Ltd. v. Stang et al.
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Judicial District of Edmonton
Veit, J.
February 28, 1991.
Summary:
The plaintiffs’ premises were damaged by fire following unauthorized use of its equipment by one defendant to repair another defendant’s automobile. The plaintiffs submitted that the automobile owner was vicariously liable for the damage.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the owner was not vicariously liable.
Agency – Topic 323
Creation of relation – Who constitutes an agent – Stang undertook to repair car brakes for a friend – He asked his employer for the use of its premises – Stang also used the employer’s equipment without permission – He caused a fire – The premises were extensively damaged – The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that there was no agency relationship – Stang was not the car owner’s agent – See paragraphs 4 to 19 – The car owner was a bailor – See paragraphs 20 to 21 – The car owner was not vicariously liable for the damage caused by Stang – See paragraphs 23 to 50.
Bailment – Topic 8
General principles – Definitions – Gratuitous bailment – What constitutes – [See Agency – Topic 323].
Torts – Topic 2644
Vicarious liability – Particular persons – Motor vehicle owner – Stang undertook to repair the brakes of a friend’s car – He used his employer’s premises with permission and his employer’s equipment without permission – He caused a fire and extensive damage to the premises – The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the car owner was not vicariously liable for the damage – See paragraphs 23 to 50.
Cases Noticed:
Launchbury v. Morgans, [1973] A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 14].
Smith v. Bailey, [1891] 2 Q.B. 403 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].
Hewitt v. Bonvin, [1940] 1 K.B. 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
Gramak Ltd. v. O’Connor (1973), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 14 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
Brooke v. Bool, [1928] 2 K.B. 578, refd to. [para. 45].
Gramak v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 69 D.L.R.(3d) 505 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].
Dobish v. Garies and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (1985), 63 A.R. 63 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].
Cleworth v. Zachariuk (1987), 49 M.V.R. 275 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
Fenn v. Peterborough (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 399 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].
Royal Securities v. Montréal Trust (1963), 63 D.L.R.(2d) 15 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].
Statutes Noticed:
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-7, sect. 181 [para. 26]; sect. 181(b) [para. 33].
Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 232 [para. 1].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 1(2), paras. 1, 2 [para. 4]; vol. 2, para. 1502 [para. 20].
Counsel:
F.D. Cook and J.L. Cairns, for the plaintiffs;
R.G. Baril, Q.C., for the defendant Rien.
This application was heard before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 28, 1991.
