Winnipeg Electric Ry. Co. v. Schwartz

Winnipeg Electric Ry. Co. v. Schwartz

Where a plaintiff gives clear evidence that a car stopped and she began to alight and subsequently suffered a violent fall and unconsciousness, and the carrier's employees failed to render assistance or report and proceeded on their way, a jury may reasonably infer the car was negligently started while the passenger was alighting; such evidence was sufficient to deny a nonsuit and to allow the case to go to the jury.

Citation
(1913) 49 SCR 80
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Winnipeg Electric Railway Company; Respondent (plaintiff): Adelaide Schwartz
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba
Legal Topics
Negligence, Carrier Liability, Inference of Negligence, Jury Verdict, Duty to Assist/report
Source Language
English
Tort Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Carrier Liability Inference of Negligence Jury Verdict Duty to Assist/report

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winnipeg Electric Railway Company

Appellant (defendant)

Adelaide Schwartz

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to infer negligence by the carrier's servants
  2. 2 Whether a nonsuit should have been granted at the close of plaintiff's case
  3. 3 Whether failure of the motorman and conductor to render assistance or report permits a presumption supporting negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Where a plaintiff gives clear evidence that a car stopped and she began to alight and subsequently suffered a violent fall and unconsciousness, and the carrier's employees failed to render assistance or report and proceeded on their way, a jury may reasonably infer the car was negligently started while the passenger was alighting; such evidence was sufficient to deny a nonsuit and to allow the case to go to the jury.