Daynes v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co.

Daynes v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co.

Because the company had not enforced the operational rules and had not pleaded reliance on them, it could not invoke those rules to establish contributory negligence; additionally, exclusion of the witness's memorandum was erroneous and materially affected the trial, and a case on contributory negligence should not be withdrawn from the jury absent a single inescapable conclusion of negligence.

Citation
(1914) 49 SCR 518
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: George Daynes; Respondent/defendant: British Columbia Electric Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 1914
Procedural Posture
Action / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Admissibility of Memorandum to Refresh Memory, Withdrawing Case From Jury, New Trial, Employer/operator Duty to Provide Safe System, Operational Rules Enforcement
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Evidence Civil Procedure Transport/railway Operation Contributory Negligence Admissibility of Memorandum to Refresh Memory Withdrawing Case From Jury +3 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Daynes

Appellant/plaintiff

British Columbia Electric Railway Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Action / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a witness may consult his own memorandum to refresh memory
  2. 2 Whether a trial judge may withdraw a negligence case from the jury on contributory negligence grounds
  3. 3 Whether a defendant may rely on internal operational rules not enforced and not pleaded to establish contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the company had not enforced the operational rules and had not pleaded reliance on them, it could not invoke those rules to establish contributory negligence; additionally, exclusion of the witness's memorandum was erroneous and materially affected the trial, and a case on contributory negligence should not be withdrawn from the jury absent a single inescapable conclusion of negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal (dismissing plaintiff's action) reversed