Case studies
Case Study No. 3
Larry owned a tractor-trailer ("the truck"), from which he earned his
livelihood. He decided to put the truck up for sale. He made arrangements with a
truck dealer ("BTC") for the truck to be left with them on consignment. One
night, with no obvious explanation, the truck burnt to a total loss on the
premises of BTC.
In the action for damages against BTC, Neville first of all proved that Larry
had securely locked the cab of the truck, and left the keys with BTC. BTC kept
the keys in an area of their premises, to which only employees of BTC had
access. Since BTC had complete control of the keys, the burden of proof shifted
to BTC to prove how the loss happened, and that the loss did not result from
BTC's negligence.
Further, Neville engaged the services of a Queen's University Professor of
Mechanical Engineering with special expertise in engines. This expert witness
produced the remnants of the burnt engine in Court and explained to the Court
how he arrived at his conclusion that someone had in fact tried to start the
truck.
The net result: the Court gave judgment in favour of Larry, and
awarded him damages to the extent of the market value of the truck. This saved
Larry from financial disaster.
Gainford v. BTC
(Supreme Court of Ontario: unreported) |
