Canadian Atlantic Railway Co. v. Moxley

Canadian Atlantic Railway Co. v. Moxley

Where jury reasonably finds one locomotive was defective and evidence shows the other was in proper order, a jury may infer the defectively maintained engine caused a fire even with a time lapse; depositions of corporate officers under R.S.O. (1877) c.50 s.136 and company repair-book entries are admissible and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1888) 15 SCR 145
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Canada Atlantic Railway Company; Plaintiff Respondent: James Templeton Moxley; Plaintiff Respondent: Richard Moxley
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 1888
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgments of Divisional Court and Court of Appeal affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability for Fire, Admissibility of Discovery Depositions, Examination of Corporate Officers, Business Records Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence
Source Language
english
Transportation Tort Evidence Corporate Procedure Negligence Liability for Fire Admissibility of Discovery Depositions Examination of Corporate Officers +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Atlantic Railway Company

Defendant Appellant

James Templeton Moxley

Plaintiff Respondent

Richard Moxley

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs proved that fire was caused by defendant’s locomotive No.4 rather than a subsequent locomotive
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial evidence and lapse of time precluded a jury inference of causation
  3. 3 Whether depositions of railway officers taken under R.S.O. (1877) c.50 s.136 were admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Where jury reasonably finds one locomotive was defective and evidence shows the other was in proper order, a jury may infer the defectively maintained engine caused a fire even with a time lapse; depositions of corporate officers under R.S.O. (1877) c.50 s.136 and company repair-book entries are admissible and the verdict will not be disturbed absent clear preponderance against it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgments of Divisional Court and Court of Appeal affirmed

Orders

  • Rule nisi discharged
  • Verdicts and judgments for plaintiffs upheld