Headford v. McClary Manufacturing Co.

Headford v. McClary Manufacturing Co.

There was no evidence of negligence attributable to the defendants and the injury was caused by the plaintiff's own carelessness; therefore non-suit was proper and concurrent factual findings by multiple courts should not be disturbed on appeal.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 291
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Henry Headford; Defendant (respondent): The McClary Manufacturing Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 1895
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Non Suit, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Evidence Questions of Fact, Standard of Care, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Source Language
English

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Headford

Plaintiff (appellant)

The McClary Manufacturing Company

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence of employers' negligence to submit to a jury
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's own conduct amounted to contributory negligence
  3. 3 Whether appellate courts should disturb concurrent factual findings of lower courts

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of negligence attributable to the defendants and the injury was caused by the plaintiff's own carelessness; therefore non-suit was proper and concurrent factual findings by multiple courts should not be disturbed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs