Supreme Court of Canada
Winnipeg Electric Co. v. Scott, [1928] S.C.R. 52
Date: 1927-10-12
Winnipeg Electric
Company v. Scott
1927: October 12.
Present: Duff, Newcombe, Rinfret, Lamont and
Smith JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR
MANITOBA
Negligence—Street railways—Non repair of
crossing—Injury to pedestrian—Liability of railway company—Sufficiency of
inspection— Jury’s findings—Appeal.
APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of
the Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirming the
judgment
[Page 53]
of Adamson J. (on findings of a jury) in
favour of the plaintiff against the defendant company, in an action for damages
for personal injuries to the plaintiff caused by his being tripped by a loose
plank in a crossing on a railway track of the defendant, for which accident the
defendant was alleged to be responsible.
R. D. Guy K.C. for
the appellant.
H. Hudson K.C. and H. J. Symington K.C.
for the respondent.
At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for
the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the judgment
of the court was orally delivered by
Duff J.—We are all of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed
with costs. It is quite unnecessary to go into the questions of law suggested
on the argument—in particular, as touching the precise responsibility cast upon
the Railway Company by the by-law and the statute and the agreement. It was not
disputed—and, of course, it could not be disputed in the circumstances—that, if
the Railway Company was negligent and that negligence was the cause of the
accident, then they are responsible; and, from that point of view, negligence
or no negligence turns entirely upon whether there was a reasonably sufficient
inspection. This question was left to the jury and the jury found that the
Railway Company had not discharged its responsibility in this respect. We are
unanimously of the opinion that the court below was right, and that, the
evidence being such as it was, it would have been quite out of the question to
withdraw the case from the jury.
Appeal
dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Anderson,
Guy, Chappell & Duval.
Solicitors for the respondent: Hudson,
Ormond, Spice & Symington.
Email this Content