Red Mountain Ry. Co. v. Blue and Deschamps

Red Mountain Ry. Co. v. Blue and Deschamps

The trial judge misdirected the jury by effectively treating any area cut or slashed under the railway's tree‑felling powers as within the statutory 'right of way' without defining that term or submitting to the jury the factual question whether a continuous strip had been appropriated as the company's way; that misdirection prejudiced the defendants and required a new trial, and the court refused to admit new plans on appeal because appeals must be decided solely on the certified case under ss.51 and 73 of the Supreme Court Act.

Citation
(1907) 39 SCR 390
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Red Mountain Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Louis Blue and Joseph S. Deschamps trading as Blue & Deschamps
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (damages for Fire Against Railway) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Railway Right of Way, Negligence, Fire Damages, Jury Directions, New Trial, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal
Source Language
English
Transportation Torts Civil Procedure Administrative/statutory Duties Railway Right of Way Negligence Fire Damages Jury Directions +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Mountain Railway Company

Appellant/defendant

Louis Blue and Joseph S. Deschamps trading as Blue & Deschamps

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (damages for Fire Against Railway) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the point of origin of the fire was within the defendant's statutory 'right of way'
  2. 2 Proper legal definition and jury direction as to 'right of way' under the Railway Act
  3. 3 Whether trial judge misdirected the jury by treating areas cut under statutory tree‑felling powers as within the right of way

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected the jury by effectively treating any area cut or slashed under the railway's tree‑felling powers as within the statutory 'right of way' without defining that term or submitting to the jury the factual question whether a continuous strip had been appropriated as the company's way; that misdirection prejudiced the defendants and required a new trial, and the court refused to admit new plans on appeal because appeals must be decided solely on the certified case under ss.51 and 73 of the Supreme Court Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellants and to the full court
  • New trial ordered