Winnipeg Electric Railway Co. v. Hill

Winnipeg Electric Railway Co. v. Hill

The motorman's abandonment of his post and permitting the conductor to drive constituted a breach of duty and actionable negligence for which the company was responsible, regardless of whether the conductor was acting as a servant at the exact moment of collision; therefore the trial verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff is upheld.

Citation
(1912) 46 SCR 654
Parties
Appellant (defendant at Trial): Winnipeg Electric Railway Co.; Respondent (plaintiff at Trial): Hill
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1912
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Manitoba Court of Appeal; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Vicarious Liability, Negligence of Servants, Breach of Company Rules
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Railway Law Employer Liability Breach of Duty Vicarious Liability Negligence of Servants Breach of Company Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winnipeg Electric Railway Co.

Appellant (defendant at Trial)

Hill

Respondent (plaintiff at Trial)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Manitoba Court of Appeal; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motorman's abandoning his post and permitting the conductor to drive constituted negligence by the company's servants
  2. 2 Whether the company was liable where the conductor may not have been acting as a servant at the moment of the collision
  3. 3 Whether breach of the company's rules by its servants amounted to actionable negligence by the company

Ratio Decidendi

The motorman's abandonment of his post and permitting the conductor to drive constituted a breach of duty and actionable negligence for which the company was responsible, regardless of whether the conductor was acting as a servant at the exact moment of collision; therefore the trial verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Verdict for plaintiff awarding $2,000 in damages affirmed