Canadian National Railways v. Clark

Canadian National Railways v. Clark

Where statutory warnings were not given and the plaintiff, who was obstructed in his view, had listened and made some observation, the failure to make a more complete observation was not so incontrovertible as to amount to contributory negligence as a matter of law; the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff and the verdict must stand.

Citation
[1923] SCR 730
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Canadian National Railways; Respondent / Plaintiff: Joseph Clark
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 1923
Procedural Posture
Negligence (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed (Davies C.J. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Level Crossing Safety, Statutory Warning Signals (bell and Whistle)
Source Language
English
Torts Railway Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Level Crossing Safety Statutory Warning Signals (bell and Whistle)

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian National Railways

Appellant / Defendant

Joseph Clark

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff's failure to look before entering the crossing constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law
  2. 2 Whether omission by railway servants to give statutory signals (bell and whistle) affected the plaintiff's duty to look and listen
  3. 3 Whether the jury's verdict finding no contributory negligence was supportable on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Where statutory warnings were not given and the plaintiff, who was obstructed in his view, had listened and made some observation, the failure to make a more complete observation was not so incontrovertible as to amount to contributory negligence as a matter of law; the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff and the verdict must stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed (Davies C.J. dissenting).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed