The following is quoted from Supreme Advocacy LLP (E. Meehan) and is quoted here because it is rare to find such good condominium humour.
INSURANCE: TOILET TANK LITIGATION
The Respondent Economical sued the Applicant Crane and claimed $105,195.68 in damages as compensation for damage sustained by its insured in 1994 due to the cracking of a toilet tank manufactured by Crane in 1984 (no word on whether Readers Digest or National Geographic were being read at the time of the crack). Economical argued the crack resulted from a manufacturing defect related to the degree of porosity of the ceramic used to manufacture the tank. In defence, Crane argued Economical was full of it, and that the crack resulted from the improper use or installation of the tank and the tank met the standards in effect in the industry at the time it was manufactured. The Superior Court wiped Crane’s defence, and allowed Economical’s action. Bottom line: it found that the position taken by Economical’s experts should be preferred: it was the variation in the water absorption rate among the various tank walls that had generated the internal stresses that produced the crack, and there was no movement from their position. The variation was [translation] “the result of an inherent weakness in the vitreous china attributable to a defect in the manufacturing of the tank” (para. 91). When the C.A. sat on the matter, they flushed the appeal away on the ground that Crane had not been able to show that the trial judge had made an error of law or fact warranting its intervention. Crane Canada Inc. v. Economical Insurance Company(Que. C.A., Feb. 13, 2012) (34665)“The application for leave to appeal… is dismissed with costs.” Link to C.A. decision
The Respondent Economical sued the Applicant Crane and claimed $105,195.68 in damages as compensation for damage sustained by its insured in 1994 due to the cracking of a toilet tank manufactured by Crane in 1984 (no word on whether Readers Digest or National Geographic were being read at the time of the crack). Economical argued the crack resulted from a manufacturing defect related to the degree of porosity of the ceramic used to manufacture the tank. In defence, Crane argued Economical was full of it, and that the crack resulted from the improper use or installation of the tank and the tank met the standards in effect in the industry at the time it was manufactured. The Superior Court wiped Crane’s defence, and allowed Economical’s action. Bottom line: it found that the position taken by Economical’s experts should be preferred: it was the variation in the water absorption rate among the various tank walls that had generated the internal stresses that produced the crack, and there was no movement from their position. The variation was [translation] “the result of an inherent weakness in the vitreous china attributable to a defect in the manufacturing of the tank” (para. 91). When the C.A. sat on the matter, they flushed the appeal away on the ground that Crane had not been able to show that the trial judge had made an error of law or fact warranting its intervention. Crane Canada Inc. v. Economical Insurance Company(Que. C.A., Feb. 13, 2012) (34665)“The application for leave to appeal… is dismissed with costs.” Link to C.A. decision
