Dixon v. Edmonton (City)

Dixon v. Edmonton (City)

Because the City prepared, operated and regulated the slide and collected tolls it assumed control and owed a duty to take reasonable measures (including informing the starter of obstructions or stationing a signal man); failure to do so was negligence causing Mrs. Dixon's injuries, and the ultra vires defense, not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1924] SCR 640
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: William Dixon; Plaintiff Appellant: Mrs. Dixon; Defendant Respondent: City of Edmonton
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 November 1924
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored in favour of plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Municipal Liability, Ultra Vires, Contributory Negligence, Damages
Source Language
english
Torts Municipal Law Administrative Law Negligence Municipal Liability Ultra Vires Contributory Negligence Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Dixon

Plaintiff Appellant

Mrs. Dixon

Plaintiff Appellant

City of Edmonton

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City was negligent in operating a municipally run coasting slide and thereby liable for injuries sustained
  2. 2 Whether the City, having assumed control of the slide, owed a duty to prevent avoidable accidents by suitable supervision (e.g. signal man)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs were contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

Because the City prepared, operated and regulated the slide and collected tolls it assumed control and owed a duty to take reasonable measures (including informing the starter of obstructions or stationing a signal man); failure to do so was negligence causing Mrs. Dixon's injuries, and the ultra vires defense, not pleaded at trial, cannot be raised for the first time here.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored in favour of plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff husband in the sum of $1,200 and for plaintiff wife in the sum of $6,000.
  • Costs awarded to appellants in this Court and in the Appellate Division.