Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Co. v. Barclay

Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Co. v. Barclay

Under the particular facts — late night, dangerous running switch shunting at a busy town street with obstructed sightlines — it was proper to leave to the jury the question whether the railway should have taken greater precautions (specifically, a man on the crossing) and that determination could support a finding of negligence against the company.

Citation
(1900) 30 SCR 360
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company; Respondent / Plaintiff (widow and Administratrix): Elsie Barclay
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1900
Procedural Posture
Torts (wrongful Death Lord Campbell’s Act) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Shunting, Warning to Public, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Watchmen at Level Crossings, Liability Under Lord Campbell’s Act
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Railway Law Wrongful Death Shunting Warning to Public Duty of Care Contributory Negligence +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company

Appellant / Defendant

Elsie Barclay

Respondent / Plaintiff (widow and Administratrix)

Procedural Posture

Torts (wrongful Death Lord Campbell’s Act) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether railway was negligent in failing to station a man on the crossing during shunting operations
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a watchman at an unregulated level crossing constituted actionable negligence under the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

Under the particular facts — late night, dangerous running switch shunting at a busy town street with obstructed sightlines — it was proper to leave to the jury the question whether the railway should have taken greater precautions (specifically, a man on the crossing) and that determination could support a finding of negligence against the company.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.