Royal Paper Mills Co. v. Cameron

Royal Paper Mills Co. v. Cameron

The jury's factual findings that the company negligently left the machinery unguarded and that the deceased did not negligently or unnecessarily assume the risk were supported by evidence and no objection was taken at trial to the questions or charge; therefore the verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff must be affirmed and will not be disturbed on appeal.

Citation
(1907) 39 SCR 365
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Royal Paper Mills Co.; Respondent/plaintiff: Marion L. Cameron
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Negligence (wrongful Death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court Sitting in Review (quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Superior Court affirmed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Duty to Safeguard Machinery, Voluntary Assumption of Risk, Jury Findings and Deference, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
English
Torts Occupational Safety Employer Liability Negligence Employer's Duty to Safeguard Machinery Voluntary Assumption of Risk Jury Findings and Deference Assessment of Damages

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Paper Mills Co.

Appellant/defendant

Marion L. Cameron

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence (wrongful Death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court Sitting in Review (quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer was negligent in leaving dangerous machinery unguarded
  2. 2 Whether the deceased, a master mechanic, voluntarily assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Whether jury findings and the judge's charge were sufficient and could be reviewed on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's factual findings that the company negligently left the machinery unguarded and that the deceased did not negligently or unnecessarily assume the risk were supported by evidence and no objection was taken at trial to the questions or charge; therefore the verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff must be affirmed and will not be disturbed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Superior Court affirmed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment in favour of respondent affirmed