Stowe v. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co.

Stowe v. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division: the testimony that the plaintiff received from his brother that the gate had been left open could be treated as a declaration/admission for evidentiary purposes and was admissible; with that characterization there was no sufficient admissible evidence of the railway's negligence and the plaintiff's action failed, so the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1918) 59 SCR 665
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Stowe; Respondent/defendant: The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort) Negligence Against Railway / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing the plaintiff's action affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Hearsay, Admissibility of Statements, Admissions, Animals on Railway Right of Way
Source Language
English
Transportation Torts Evidence Negligence Hearsay Admissibility of Statements Admissions Animals on Railway Right of Way

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stowe

Appellant/plaintiff

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort) Negligence Against Railway / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement relayed by the plaintiff that his brother had "left the gate open" was hearsay and inadmissible or could be treated as a party admission/declaration and therefore admissible
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient admissible evidence of the railway's negligence to impose liability for animals killed on the right-of-way

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division: the testimony that the plaintiff received from his brother that the gate had been left open could be treated as a declaration/admission for evidentiary purposes and was admissible; with that characterization there was no sufficient admissible evidence of the railway's negligence and the plaintiff's action failed, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing the plaintiff's action affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.