Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Carruthers

Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Carruthers

Section 237(4) of the Railway Act, 1903 must be read so that "at large upon the highway or otherwise" covers animals at large whether on an intersecting highway or elsewhere; therefore the railway is liable for animals killed on its property unless it proves they got at large through the owner's or custodian's negligence or wilful act, which was not proved here; appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1907) 39 SCR 251
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Respondent (plaintiff): William Carruthers
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1907
Procedural Posture
Tort (negligence) — Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Animals at Large, Duty to Fence, Liability for Stray Animals, Construction of S.237 Railway Act 1903
Source Language
English
Torts Railway Law Statutory Interpretation Animals at Large Duty to Fence Liability for Stray Animals Construction of S.237 Railway Act 1903

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Appellant (defendant)

William Carruthers

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Tort (negligence) — Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of s.237(4) of the Railway Act 1903 (meaning of "at large upon the highway or otherwise")
  2. 2 Whether the animals got at large through the negligence or wilful act of the owner or custodian
  3. 3 Whether the highway at issue must intersect the railway to fall within s.237(4)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 237(4) of the Railway Act, 1903 must be read so that "at large upon the highway or otherwise" covers animals at large whether on an intersecting highway or elsewhere; therefore the railway is liable for animals killed on its property unless it proves they got at large through the owner's or custodian's negligence or wilful act, which was not proved here; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent