Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Lachance

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Lachance

The appeal was dismissed because the court concluded the damages awarded were not so grossly excessive as to demonstrate that the jury were led into error or influenced by improper motives within the meaning of arts.502–503 C.P.Q.; the court declined to decide the open question whether solatium doloris is recoverable under art.1056, and noted a dissent as to the $300 awarded to the eldest son where no evidence of loss was shown.

Citation
(1909) 42 SCR 205
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Canadian Pacific Railway Co.; Respondent/plaintiff: Arthemise Lachance and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 May 1909
Procedural Posture
Negligence/wrongful Death Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court, Sitting in Review, Montreal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Damages, Wrongful Death, New Trial, Solatium Doloris, Jury Verdict Excess
Source Language
English
Torts Civil Procedure Quebec Civil Law Negligence Damages Wrongful Death New Trial Solatium Doloris +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Co.

Appellant/defendant

Arthemise Lachance and Others

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence/wrongful Death Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court, Sitting in Review, Montreal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' negligence caused death
  2. 2 Whether jury verdict on damages was grossly excessive under arts.502–503 C.P.Q.
  3. 3 Whether damages for solatium doloris are recoverable under art.1056 C.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the court concluded the damages awarded were not so grossly excessive as to demonstrate that the jury were led into error or influenced by improper motives within the meaning of arts.502–503 C.P.Q.; the court declined to decide the open question whether solatium doloris is recoverable under art.1056, and noted a dissent as to the $300 awarded to the eldest son where no evidence of loss was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiffs for $4,000 damages with interest and costs affirmed