Davie v. Nova Scotia Tramways and Power Co.

Davie v. Nova Scotia Tramways and Power Co.

The majority dismissed the appeal because, on the facts, the plaintiff failed to establish that the tram company's conduct was the proximate cause of the loss without concurrent contributory negligence by the teamster; sanding could not reasonably have been applied without losing control and the teamster had available means to avoid the risk, so the respondent was not held liable.

Citation
(1918) 59 SCR 648
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Davie; Respondent/defendant: Nova Scotia Tramways and Power Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Operational Safety (tramways)
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Transport Law Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Causation Operational Safety (tramways)

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davie

Appellant/plaintiff

Nova Scotia Tramways and Power Co.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tram company was negligent in operating the car so that it skidded and struck the horse
  2. 2 Whether the teamster was contributorily negligent in attempting to cross the track and failing to take available precautions
  3. 3 Whether the tram operator could reasonably have used sand to prevent skidding without losing control

Ratio Decidendi

The majority dismissed the appeal because, on the facts, the plaintiff failed to establish that the tram company's conduct was the proximate cause of the loss without concurrent contributory negligence by the teamster; sanding could not reasonably have been applied without losing control and the teamster had available means to avoid the risk, so the respondent was not held liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Costs awarded to the respondent