Hyperlawhypertext legal database Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works [1974] SCR 1189

← Cases

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works

[1974] SCR 1189 Court SCC Decision date 1973-08-27 English

PartiesRivtow Marine Ltd. (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Washington Iron Works and Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd. (Defendants) Respondents

Counsel (6)
C. C. Locke, Q.C., and Peter Johnson, for the plaintiff, appellant.
H. J. Grey, Q.C., for the defendant, respond­ent, Washington Iron Works.
D, T. Braidwood, Q.C., and C. J. Hopkins, for the defendant, respondent, Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd.
Solicitors for the plaintiff, appellant: Ladner, Downs, Ladner, Locke, Clark & Lenox, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the defendant, respondent, Washington Iron Works: Harper, Grey, Easton & Co., Vancouver.
Solicitors for the defendant, respondent, Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd.: Sutton, Braidwood, Morris, Hall & Sutton, Vancouver.

Judges Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Hall, Emmett Matthew; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Laskin, Bora

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from British Columbia

Subjects Torts

Contents

The judgment of Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence and Pigeon JJ. was delivered by

That the cranes referred to in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim herein were at all material times defective in that they were of such design, construction and material that under stresses or operation they developed cracks by reason of which it was necessary to undertake substantial repairs, but not that such defects were known to this Defendant at any material time.
That on the 20th day of September, 1966, there were cracks in the pintles of the said cranes, but not that such cracks appeared for the first time on September 20th, 1966.
That the said cracks were due to over-stresses caused by inadequate design and fabrication of the said cranes, but not that such cranes were designed or fabricated by this Defendant.
That the said cranes were of the same design, construction and materials as those manufac­tured by the Defendant Washington Iron Works and installed in the barge "Straits Logger".
That prior to the 16th day of September, 1966, the Defendant Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd. was aware that cracks had existed in the pintles of the crane in Haida Carrier, Island Yarder, Straits Logger and Rivtow Carrier, but not that such knowledge on the part of this Defendant was exclusive to this Defendant in any way.
That all the said cracks were in approximately the same location in all the said cranes.
That on the 16th day of September, 1966, one of the cranes in "Straits Logger" collapsed due to defective design.

[Page 1195]

That by reason of the defects in the said cranes in "Rivtow Carrier" the Plaintiff took the said barge out of service on the 20th day of Septem­ber, 1966, to carry out engineering tests and investigation, modification and repairs.

Footnotes

  1. [1] [1972] 3 W.W.R. 735, 26 D.L.R. (3d) 559.
  2. [2] (1869), L.R. 5 Ex. 1.
  3. [3] (1837), 2 M. & W. 519, 150 E.R. 863.
  4. [4] (1921), 62 S.C.R. 393.
  5. [5] (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 503.
  6. [6] [1932] A.C. 562.
  7. [7] (1916), 217 N.Y. 382.
  8. [8] [1935] A.C. 85.
  9. [9] (1955), 148 N.Y.S. 2d 284.
  10. [10] (1922), 12 Ll L.. Rep. 183.
  11. [11] [1972] S.C.R. 569.
  12. [12] (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 453.
  13. [13] [1911] 1 K.B. 243.
  14. [14] [1964] A.C. 465.
  15. [15] [1951] 2 K.B. 164.
  16. [16] [1972] S.C.R. 769.
  17. [17] [1970] 3 All E.R. 245.
  18. [18] [1972] 3 W.L.R. 502.
  19. [19] [1970] 2 Q.B. 223.
  20. [20] [1969] 1 W.L.R. 961.
  21. [21] [1970] 3 All E.R. 245.
  22. [22] [1964] A.C. 465.
  23. [23] (1931), 255 N.Y. 170.
  24. [24] (1875), 10 Q.B. 453.
  25. [25] [1972] 1 All E.R. 462.
  26. [26] [1959] O.R. 581.
  27. [27] [1972] 3 W.L.R. 502.
  28. [28] (1916), 217 N.Y. 382.
  29. [29] [1932] A.C. 562.