Duke V. Enbridge, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 423 (S.C.

C) The Mark Duke, the plaintiff and his family lived normally until he noticed the gas leak coming from the gas line. The Duke residence contacted Enbridge, the defendant the same day and they said they would come and have a look the next day. However the people from Enbridge did not come. The Duke residence tried to call Enbridge again, but they said everything is fine, an employee came and checked. The Duke residence thought there was no danger, so they were living like there was no danger in the house. After a month, The Duke family came from the theatres and see their broken home, and notice a big explosion happened. The firefighters tell the Duke family that the cause was a gas leak, but the Duke family told the firefighters that Enbridge told them everything was fine. They later realized Enbridge had lied to them about their employee coming to their house and seeing whether there is a gas leak. The Mark Duke filed a civil law case against Enbridge asking for general damages and special damages totalling to ten million dollars. Both types of general damages, pecuniary and non-pecuniary are in the case because there was a terrible personal loss which does not involve an actual loss of money and is difficult to quantify and monetary compensation for losses that can be calculated based on how much money the plaintiff lost. In the trial, the Duke family showed pictures of their house, and showed what had been destroyed. They also gave the judge a recording of them contacting Enbridge, and Enbridge telling them everything was fine. The judge ruled that duty of care was breached because the duty of Enbridge was to transport gas safely, but instead caused the explosion of the Duke family's house. The judge ruled that actual harm was done, the house, wedding photos, and memories were all destroyed within the act of negligence. He also said that the harm was unreasonable because the Duke family contacted Enbridge about the problem, yet they did not fix it, and lied. Therefore the judge ruled the case was an act of negligence. In defence, Enbridge said their service is from a third party that they contacted, and did not come. The accident was foreseeable by Enbridge because they knew the gas leak was not fixed, so that is why the judge ruled general and special damages amounting to 3 million dollars. The judge ruled that it was Enbridge's responsibility to safely transport gas to homes, and the third party company is not at fault

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.