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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence of employers' negligence to submit to a jury
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's own conduct amounted to contributory negligence
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment