Hesse v. Saint John Railway Co.

Hesse v. Saint John Railway Co.

Majority held that improperly admitted financial evidence (stock premium) on re-examination and the trial judge's comments about a consulting surgeon's conduct and certain directions to the jury were likely to have affected the amount of the verdict; under 60 Vict. c.24 s.370 these issues occasioned a substantial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1899) 30 SCR 218
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Joseph Hesse; Defendant/respondent: The Saint John Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 1899
Procedural Posture
Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick (motion for New Trial Challenged)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada; new trial affirmed (limited to assessment of damages), liability left undisturbed; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Damages, Misdirection, Improper Admission of Evidence, New Trial, Medical Testimony, Procedural Discovery/commission
Source Language
english
Torts Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Damages Misdirection Improper Admission of Evidence New Trial +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Hesse

Plaintiff/appellant

The Saint John Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick (motion for New Trial Challenged)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether improperly admitted evidence (financial status/stock premium) and alleged misdirection regarding medical evidence and credibility occasioned a substantial wrong or miscarriage warranting a new trial under 60 Vict. c.24 s.370 (N.B.)
  2. 2 Whether re-examination went beyond scope opened by cross-examination
  3. 3 Whether judge's comments about a consulting surgeon's conduct and an invitation to jurors to imagine themselves as plaintiff improperly influenced assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that improperly admitted financial evidence (stock premium) on re-examination and the trial judge's comments about a consulting surgeon's conduct and certain directions to the jury were likely to have affected the amount of the verdict; under 60 Vict. c.24 s.370 these issues occasioned a substantial miscarriage as to damages, warranting affirmation of the order for a new trial limited to assessment of damages while leaving liability undisturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada; new trial affirmed (limited to assessment of damages), liability left undisturbed; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without costs
  • Order for a new trial affirmed and varied to be limited to assessment of damages only; finding of defendant's liability to stand