Civil responsibility for damage caused by things under one's care applies absent fault, unless prevention was impossible.

Article 1054 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada was interpreted as creating responsibility for damage caused by things under a person's care without requiring the claimant to prove personal fault. The exculpatory clause applies to that broader liability, so the custodian escapes only by proving the damage could not have been prevented. The company's authority to distribute electricity did not displace this civil responsibility, because statutory power authorises only what is necessarily incidental to the undertaking. Since practical safeguards could have prevented the damage, the loss was not treated as a necessary incident of the authorized activity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 1054 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada imposes liability for damage caused by things under a person's care without proof of fault, subject to the exculpatory clause; (ii) whether the company's statutory authority to distribute electricity excluded liability under the Civil Code or otherwise justified the damage as a necessary incident of the undertaking.

Issue (i): Whether Article 1054 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada imposes liability for damage caused by things under a person's care without proof of fault, subject to the exculpatory clause.

Analysis: The language of Articles 1053 and 1054 was treated as the starting point, and the construction of the Code was held not to be controlled by French decisions or by prior Quebec jurisprudence where the words of the enactment were plain. Article 1054 was read as creating a wider and distinct responsibility from Article 1053, extending beyond personal fault to damage caused by persons or things under the defendant's care. The exculpatory clause was held to apply to the whole preceding article, including damage caused by things. Liability arose once damage by things under the defendant's care was shown, and the defendant could escape only by proving inability to prevent the damage.

Conclusion: Article 1054 imposes liability for damage caused by things under a person's care without requiring the plaintiff first to prove fault, subject only to proof that the defendant could not have prevented the damage.

Issue (ii): Whether the company's statutory authority to distribute electricity excluded liability under the Civil Code or otherwise justified the damage as a necessary incident of the undertaking.

Analysis: The statutory power to maintain and operate overhead electric lines did not amount to a charter to commit torts, and only what was necessarily incidental to the exercise of that authority could be impliedly authorized. The evidence showed that grounding the transformer wires was a practicable and efficient safeguard that could have prevented the escape of electricity into the houses. The damage was therefore not a necessary incident of the statutory powers, and the special statutory provisions did not displace the general civil responsibility.

Conclusion: The statutory authority did not exclude liability, and the damage was not justified as a necessary incident of the undertaking.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the respondents established civil responsibility under the Code and the appellants' statutory powers did not provide immunity from the loss.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a civil code provision creates responsibility for damage caused by things under a person's care, liability arises without proof of personal fault and can be avoided only by proving inability to prevent the damage; statutory authority does not excuse damage unless it is necessarily incidental to the authorized act.

---