The Canada Southern Railway Co. v. Jackson

The Canada Southern Railway Co. v. Jackson

Majority held that the Ontario Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act applied to the Canada Southern Railway Company and that on the evidence (including failure to ring the bell and excessive speed) the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; therefore the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff were correct and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1890) 17 SCR 316
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Canada Southern Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Charles S. Jackson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1890
Procedural Posture
Negligence Personal Injury / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Workmen's Compensation, Federalism, Government Railways Act
Source Language
english
Labour Law Tort Constitutional Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Workmen's Compensation Federalism Government Railways Act

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

Parties

The Canada Southern Railway Company

Appellant/defendant

Charles S. Jackson

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence Personal Injury / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ontario Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act applied to the Canada Southern Railway Company despite its being brought under the Dominion Government Railways Act
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's conduct amounted to contributory negligence barring recovery
  3. 3 Whether the company's servants were negligent (failure to ring bell, excessive speed) and whether that negligence caused the injury

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the Ontario Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act applied to the Canada Southern Railway Company and that on the evidence (including failure to ring the bell and excessive speed) the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; therefore the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff were correct and affirmed. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Dissenting judges would have allowed the appeal on grounds that plaintiff's own choice of a dangerous route constituted contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff affirmed in the amount of $1,620 (assessed as $45 per month)