Wabash Rd. Co. v. McKay

Wabash Rd. Co. v. McKay

Where the statutory requirement to bring the train to a full stop before a crossing was satisfied by stopping at the distance semaphore and receiving proceed signals and the train proceeded at a lawful speed, failure to stop at an additional company 'stop-post' did not constitute contributory negligence; company rules cannot impose a higher duty than the statute and ambiguous instructions do not, by themselves, establish negligence.

Citation
(1908) 40 SCR 251
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Wabash Railroad Company; Respondent Plaintiff: Ada McKay
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 1908
Procedural Posture
Tort Wrongful Death (railway Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; trial judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Statutory Duty to Stop at Crossings (railway Act S.278), Company Rules Vs Statutory Duty, Obedience to Internal Railway Signals
Source Language
English
Transportation Railway Law Negligence Statutory Interpretation Contributory Negligence Statutory Duty to Stop at Crossings (railway Act S.278) Company Rules Vs Statutory Duty Obedience to Internal Railway Signals

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wabash Railroad Company

Appellant Defendant

Ada McKay

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort Wrongful Death (railway Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure of deceased engineer to stop at company 'stop-post' constituted contributory negligence barring recovery
  2. 2 Whether a stop at a distance semaphore satisfied the statutory requirement to bring a train to a full stop before a crossing
  3. 3 Whether company rules or instructions can impose a higher standard of duty than the statute

Ratio Decidendi

Where the statutory requirement to bring the train to a full stop before a crossing was satisfied by stopping at the distance semaphore and receiving proceed signals and the train proceeded at a lawful speed, failure to stop at an additional company 'stop-post' did not constitute contributory negligence; company rules cannot impose a higher duty than the statute and ambiguous instructions do not, by themselves, establish negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; trial judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment for plaintiff affirmed in the amount of $10,000.