How has liability been determined in respect of a broken jar?

The appellant has appealed in respect of liability. On the appeal learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the relationship of the appellant and respondent was that of invitor and invitee and that the broken jar constituted an unusual danger. He contended, however, that the learned trial judge erred: (1) In finding the unusual danger was one of which the appellant knew or ought to have known; (2) In finding the broken jar constituted a ‘trap;’ and (3) In applying the principles propounded in Murray v. Saskatoon (City), supra, to the facts in this case.

Learned counsel for the appellant strongly argued that although the broken jar constituted an unusual danger, it was not one of which the appellant knew or ought to have known and, consequently, on the principles established in Indermaur v. Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274, 35 LJCP 184, affirmed (1867) LR 2 CP 311, 36 LJCP 181, the appellant was not liable for the damages suffered by the respondent.