Toronto Railway Co. v. Fleming

Toronto Railway Co. v. Fleming

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict: the evidence permitted a finding that the rebuilt controller had a defect that proper inspection would likely have revealed, thereby establishing employer negligence in failing to inspect; although opinions were divided on the motorman’s negligence, the overall verdict...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1913) 47 SCR 612
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Toronto Railway Company; Respondent (plaintiff): William Fleming
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 1913
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (street Railway) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiff affirmed
Legal Topics
Inspection of Equipment, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Proximate Cause, Employer Liability for Servants, Destruction of Physical Evidence
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Transport/railway Law Inspection of Equipment Res Ipsa Loquitur Proximate Cause Employer Liability for Servants Destruction of Physical Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toronto Railway Company

Appellant (defendant)

William Fleming

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (street Railway) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the railway company was negligent in using a rebuilt controller and failing to properly inspect it
  2. 2 Whether the motorman was negligent in not applying the brakes after the explosion
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's injuries were too remote or caused by an independent intervening act of other passengers

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict: the evidence permitted a finding that the rebuilt controller had a defect that proper inspection would likely have revealed, thereby establishing employer negligence in failing to inspect; although opinions were divided on the motorman’s negligence, the overall verdict was not interfered with and stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiff affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $1,100 affirmed