Can a plaintiff recover damages from a lessor of a propane truck for loss of propane?

The direct consequence of the observations of Esson C.J.S.C. in Craftchick v. Jones was that the plaintiff could not recover damages against the lessor of the propane truck because the loss was occasioned in part by a breach of duty of care by a worker, but that the plaintiff could have recovered had the worker been wholly at fault.

The legislative anomaly is well-known. As Esson C.J.S.C. observed in Craftchick v. Jones, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. Courts should be loath to rewrite legislation in circumstances where ambiguity does not exist but only an anomaly of consequence exists as a result of specific wording. This is particularly so where there exists side-by-side concepts of compensation and insurance that approach the consequences of this type of motor vehicle accident from different perspectives.

Here the legislature can safely be assumed to be aware of its legislative enactments which have been considered by Courts of this Province on more than one occasion. The legislature knows how to "correct" the anomaly so clearly pointed out in Craftchick v. Jones, but has so far declined to do so. Thus it is clearly apparent that in the context of vicarious liability of owners of motor vehicles who are not employers or workers under the Act, the legislature wishes to maintain the rights of injured workers to recover against such vicariously liable tortfeasors in the absence of a division of the breach of duty owed to the injured plaintiff or worker.