Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. James

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. James

The Railway Act did not require the company to fence across the culvert or to erect boundary fences along the entire extent of its property; the attachment of fences to the culvert walls fulfilled the statutory duty. Moreover, the horses were at large on the highway within the meaning of s.271, which barred the owner's right of action. Therefore the railway was not liable and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 420
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada; Respondent / Plaintiff: Simon James
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for defendant (appellant).
Legal Topics
Railway Fencing, Duty to Fence, Negligence, Animals on Highway, Culvert Liability, Proximate Cause
Source Language
English
Transportation Law Tort Property Law Statutory Interpretation Railway Fencing Duty to Fence Negligence Animals on Highway +2 more

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 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada

Appellant / Defendant

Simon James

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Railway Act (s.194 as amended) required the railway company to erect and maintain fences across a culvert/stream
  2. 2 Whether omission to fence the culvert was a proximate cause of loss
  3. 3 Whether sec.271 (animals at large on highway) barred recovery by the owner

Ratio Decidendi

The Railway Act did not require the company to fence across the culvert or to erect boundary fences along the entire extent of its property; the attachment of fences to the culvert walls fulfilled the statutory duty. Moreover, the horses were at large on the highway within the meaning of s.271, which barred the owner's right of action. Therefore the railway was not liable and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for defendant (appellant).

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment entered for the defendant with costs incurred in the courts below.
  • Respondent entitled to the costs of this appeal; each party to have right of set‑off; party in whose favour the balance of costs is found shall have execution therefor.