Robinson v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.

Robinson v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.

The majority held the appellant was not bound by the exclusion clause because he had neither actual nor reasonable constructive notice of it and the railway had not done what was incumbent to bring the special condition to his attention; accordingly the exclusion could not be invoked to bar recovery for negligence and the trial judge’s verdict for the plaintiff was restored.

Citation
(1913) 47 SCR 622
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Albert Nelson Robinson; Respondent / Defendant: The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury / Transportation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Delivered 1913 05 06
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed and judgment of the trial court restored in favour of the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Carriage of Passengers, Exemption Clause, Notice of Conditions, Special Contract, Liability Limitation
Source Language
English
Transportation Contract Tort Negligence Railway Law Carriage of Passengers Exemption Clause Notice of Conditions +2 more

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Nelson Robinson

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury / Transportation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Delivered 1913 05 06

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person put in charge of freight is bound by an owner’s shipping contract containing an exclusion clause when he did not sign or know of it
  2. 2 Whether the railway gave reasonable notice of the exclusion clause so as to bind the appellant
  3. 3 Whether assent to an exclusion clause can be implied from mere carriage and possession of a way-bill

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held the appellant was not bound by the exclusion clause because he had neither actual nor reasonable constructive notice of it and the railway had not done what was incumbent to bring the special condition to his attention; accordingly the exclusion could not be invoked to bar recovery for negligence and the trial judge’s verdict for the plaintiff was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed and judgment of the trial court restored in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed