Winnipeg Electric Ry. Co. v. Aitken

Winnipeg Electric Ry. Co. v. Aitken

Majority held that s.116 of the Manitoba Railway Act, by its plain words 'construction or operation of the railway', includes negligent operation giving rise to passenger injuries; therefore the one-year limitation barred the plaintiff's action and the appeal was allowed, restoring dismissal of the action.

Citation
(1922) 63 SCR 586
Parties
Appellant Defendant (railway): Winnipeg Electric Railway Company; Respondent Plaintiff (passenger): Laura Aitken
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (negligence/contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored and action dismissed; costs to appellant
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Carriage of Passengers, Negligence, Construction of Statutory Limitation Clause
Source Language
English
Tort Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Railway Law Limitation of Actions Carriage of Passengers Negligence Construction of Statutory Limitation Clause

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winnipeg Electric Railway Company

Appellant Defendant (railway)

Laura Aitken

Respondent Plaintiff (passenger)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (negligence/contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.116 of the Manitoba Railway Act applies to actions by passengers for personal injury
  2. 2 Whether a passenger's claim is in substance a contract claim or tort for purposes of a statutory limitation
  3. 3 Proper construction of the phrase 'construction or operation of the railway' in a limitation provision

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that s.116 of the Manitoba Railway Act, by its plain words 'construction or operation of the railway', includes negligent operation giving rise to passenger injuries; therefore the one-year limitation barred the plaintiff's action and the appeal was allowed, restoring dismissal of the action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored and action dismissed; costs to appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of trial court dismissing action restored