Toronto Railway Co. v. Grinsted

Toronto Railway Co. v. Grinsted

Given evidence that plaintiff was overheated from an altercation, exposed to extreme cold without shelter, and medical evidence linking such exposure to bronchitis and rheumatism, the jury could reasonably find the illness was the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful ejection; therefore the award for illness was not too remote and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 570
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Toronto Railway Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Albert Grinsted
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 1895
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario, Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Wrongful Ejectment, Remoteness of Damage, Causation, Duty of Care, Damages Assessment
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Contractual Carriage/transfer Obligations Wrongful Ejectment Remoteness of Damage Causation Duty of Care Damages Assessment

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toronto Railway Company

Defendant/appellant

Albert Grinsted

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether illness caused by exposure after wrongful ejectment was too remote to be recoverable
  2. 2 Whether the defendants owed a duty of reasonable care when taking charge of a passenger under a transfer regime
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported a finding that the illness was the natural and probable result of the ejectment

Ratio Decidendi

Given evidence that plaintiff was overheated from an altercation, exposed to extreme cold without shelter, and medical evidence linking such exposure to bronchitis and rheumatism, the jury could reasonably find the illness was the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful ejection; therefore the award for illness was not too remote and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for respondent affirmed including $300 damages for illness (in addition to $200 already paid)