Randall v. Ahearn & Soper

Randall v. Ahearn & Soper

The evidence did not establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff was a trespasser and the absence of rubber gloves was not conclusively contributory negligence; therefore the question of negligence and contributory negligence had to be left to a jury and a new trial was required.

Citation
(1904) 34 SCR 698
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Thomas E. Randall and Others; Respondent (defendant): Ahearn & Soper, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 1904
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Allowing Appeal and Ordering New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered; costs awarded to appellants in this Court and in Court of Appeal; costs of first trial and Divisional Court to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Evidence, New Trial
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Trespass Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Evidence +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas E. Randall and Others

Appellant (plaintiff)

Ahearn & Soper, Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Allowing Appeal and Ordering New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was a trespasser on the pole such that defendants owed no duty of care
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's failure to wear employer‑issued rubber gloves constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law
  3. 3 Whether the evidence warranted dismissal or required a new trial given jury disagreement

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff was a trespasser and the absence of rubber gloves was not conclusively contributory negligence; therefore the question of negligence and contributory negligence had to be left to a jury and a new trial was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered; costs awarded to appellants in this Court and in Court of Appeal; costs of first trial and Divisional Court to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order of Court of Appeal discharged.