Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. v. Anweiler

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. v. Anweiler

The appeal was dismissed because the Court could not say that no reasonable jury could have drawn inferences from the evidence to find the defendant's negligence caused the death; accordingly the trial judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury and the order for a new trial was correct.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1929] SCR 173
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; Plaintiff Respondent: Melley Anweiler, Administratrix of the Estate of Fred Anweiler, Deceased
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 1928
Procedural Posture
Wrongful Death Action Under the Saskatchewan Fatal Accidents Act (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan After Trial Non Suit; Court of Appeal Ordered New Trial; Appeal Dismissed by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal ordering new trial affirmed
Legal Topics
Wrongful Death, Negligence, Non Suit, Withdrawal of Case From Jury, Fatal Accidents Act
Source Language
english
Tort Civil Procedure Personal Injury Appeal Wrongful Death Negligence Non Suit Withdrawal of Case From Jury +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company

Defendant Appellant

Melley Anweiler, Administratrix of the Estate of Fred Anweiler, Deceased

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wrongful Death Action Under the Saskatchewan Fatal Accidents Act (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan After Trial Non Suit; Court of Appeal Ordered New Trial; Appeal Dismissed by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting a nonsuit and withdrawing the case from the jury
  2. 2 Whether the evidence could reasonably support a jury inference that the deceased's death was caused by the defendant's negligence
  3. 3 Whether evidence from discovery (Steeper's examination) was admissible (not decided)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Court could not say that no reasonable jury could have drawn inferences from the evidence to find the defendant's negligence caused the death; accordingly the trial judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury and the order for a new trial was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal ordering new trial affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Matter remitted for new trial