Glenn and Babb v. Schofield

Glenn and Babb v. Schofield

The phrase 'accessible to stock' in s.4 of the Open Wells Act is qualified to require only such reasonable protection against access by lawfully running stock as men of ordinary sense would consider reasonably fit; where a jury finds the granary reasonably fit for storing grain against animals running at large, the storer is not liable under s.4 and the trial judgment should be restored.

Citation
[1928] SCR 208
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Robert J. Glenn; Defendant Appellant: Edgar Babb; Plaintiff Respondent: Charles J. Schofield
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 1928
Procedural Posture
Torts (statutory Liability Under the Open Wells Act) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan reversed; trial judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of 'accessible to Stock', Liability for Stored Grain, Reasonable Protection Standard, Defences to Statutory Liability
Source Language
English
Torts Statutory Interpretation Agricultural/animals Law Property Interpretation of 'accessible to Stock' Liability for Stored Grain Reasonable Protection Standard Defences to Statutory Liability

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert J. Glenn

Defendant Appellant

Edgar Babb

Defendant Appellant

Charles J. Schofield

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Torts (statutory Liability Under the Open Wells Act) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of 'accessible to stock' in s.4 of the Open Wells Act?
  2. 2 Does a granary reasonably fit for storing grain absolve the storer from liability when lawfully running stock obtain access?
  3. 3 Are exceptions available where access is caused by act of God, King's enemies or third parties?

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'accessible to stock' in s.4 of the Open Wells Act is qualified to require only such reasonable protection against access by lawfully running stock as men of ordinary sense would consider reasonably fit; where a jury finds the granary reasonably fit for storing grain against animals running at large, the storer is not liable under s.4 and the trial judgment should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan reversed; trial judgment restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs of this appeal and of the appeal below
  • Judgment at trial restored dismissing the plaintiff's action