Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. Earl

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. Earl

Majority held that although the railway violated the Board's order by performing switching at an unauthorized hour and without a watchman, the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a proximate contributing cause of his injury and barred recovery because it was not proved the railway by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of that negligence; therefore appeal allowed and action dismissed.

Citation
[1923] SCR 397
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiff: F. J. Earl
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 1923
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Appeal (personal Injury at Level Crossing) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed; cross‑appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Level Crossing Accidents, Breach of Regulatory Order, Contributory Negligence as Defence, Proximate Cause, Watchman/flagman Obligations
Source Language
English
Torts Railway Regulation Negligence Statutory Duty Causation Level Crossing Accidents Breach of Regulatory Order Contributory Negligence as Defence +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company

Appellant/defendant

F. J. Earl

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Appeal (personal Injury at Level Crossing) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a railway's breach of an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners renders it automatically liable for injury
  2. 2 Whether contributory negligence by the plaintiff is a defence to an action founded on breach of a statutory/regulatory prohibition
  3. 3 Whether the railway by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of the plaintiff's negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that although the railway violated the Board's order by performing switching at an unauthorized hour and without a watchman, the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a proximate contributing cause of his injury and barred recovery because it was not proved the railway by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of that negligence; therefore appeal allowed and action dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed; cross‑appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs throughout
  • Action dismissed