British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Dunphy

British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Dunphy

The evidence, when read with the trial judge's clear charge and the jury's view of the scene, did not conclusively establish contributory negligence and the jury were entitled to accept parts of their own witness's evidence; the jury's finding of "Insufficient precaution on account of approaching crossing and conditions existing on morning in question," construed with the charge and evidence, was sufficiently definite to support the verdict; appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1919) 59 SCR 263
Parties
Defendant Appellant: British Columbia Electric Railway Co.; Plaintiff Respondent: Nellie F. Dunphy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 1919
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia Following Jury Trial and Judgment for Plaintiff
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal and trial court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Sufficiency of Jury Findings, Credibility of Party's Own Witness, Standard of Care at Crossings
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Evidence Contributory Negligence Sufficiency of Jury Findings Credibility of Party's Own Witness Standard of Care at Crossings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Columbia Electric Railway Co.

Defendant Appellant

Nellie F. Dunphy

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia Following Jury Trial and Judgment for Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cross's testimony that he warned the plaintiff conclusively established contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether the jury's description of the defendant's negligence was too vague to support the verdict
  3. 3 Whether a party may be bound by testimony given by a witness called on its behalf or the jury may accept parts and reject parts of that testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, when read with the trial judge's clear charge and the jury's view of the scene, did not conclusively establish contributory negligence and the jury were entitled to accept parts of their own witness's evidence; the jury's finding of "Insufficient precaution on account of approaching crossing and conditions existing on morning in question," construed with the charge and evidence, was sufficiently definite to support the verdict; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal and trial court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff affirmed