Alexander v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Co. and Ricker

Alexander v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Co. and Ricker

There was no evidence of the exceptional 'special circumstances' necessary to displace the statutory scheme; the Board had considered and refused additional protection and set speed limits, the train complied with Board orders and statutory warning obligations, and therefore the jury's finding of negligence was unsupported and must be set aside; appeals dismissed.

Citation
[1954] SCR 707
Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Jessie Alexander; Appellant Plaintiff: Wilbert O’Hanley; Respondent Defendant: Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Co.; Respondent Defendant: Walter Ricker
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1954
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (railway Level Crossing); Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Jury Trial at First Instance
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Court of Appeal for Ontario decision affirmed; jury verdicts set aside for lack of evidence of actionable negligence
Legal Topics
Level Crossing, Negligence, Board of Transport Commissioners, Duty of Care, Regulation of Train Speed, Whistle Bylaws, Evidence on Obstruction
Source Language
English
Torts Railways Administrative Law Level Crossing Negligence Board of Transport Commissioners Duty of Care Regulation of Train Speed +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jessie Alexander

Appellant Plaintiff

Wilbert O’Hanley

Appellant Plaintiff

Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Co.

Respondent Defendant

Walter Ricker

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (railway Level Crossing); Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Jury Trial at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances existed to impose a common law duty on the railway to take precautions beyond those ordered or approved by the Board of Transport Commissioners
  2. 2 Whether the jury could question the Board’s determinations as to speed limits and adequacy of crossing signals
  3. 3 Whether appellants were negligent in speed, lookout, sounding warnings, and maintenance of right-of-way vegetation

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of the exceptional 'special circumstances' necessary to displace the statutory scheme; the Board had considered and refused additional protection and set speed limits, the train complied with Board orders and statutory warning obligations, and therefore the jury's finding of negligence was unsupported and must be set aside; appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; Court of Appeal for Ontario decision affirmed; jury verdicts set aside for lack of evidence of actionable negligence

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs if demanded
  • Judgments entered on jury verdicts set aside and Court of Appeal decision affirmed