Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Hatfield and Scott Ltd.

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Hatfield and Scott Ltd.

The issuing carrier under a joint tariff remained liable for loss occurring while goods were in the custody of the subsequent carrier unless the issuing carrier affirmatively proved the loss was not caused by the other carrier or that the other carrier was relieved by express terms; clause 6's exemption for removal to a public warehouse required written notice to the owner and was not met, so the issuing carrier remained liable; damages are measured by the value at the place and time of shipment per clause 4.

Citation
(1921) 62 SCR 524
Parties
Appellant/defendant (issuing Carrier): Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Hatfield and Scott, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 1921
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Carrier Liability Under Bill of Lading / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick; Appeal Dismissed, Judgment Below Affirmed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondent affirmed
Legal Topics
Carrier Liability, Bill of Lading Terms, Warehouseman Liability, Onus of Proof, Joint Tariff, Notice of Arrival, Measure of Damages
Source Language
English
Transportation Contract Torts Commercial Law Carrier Liability Bill of Lading Terms Warehouseman Liability Onus of Proof +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Appellant/defendant (issuing Carrier)

Hatfield and Scott, Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Carrier Liability Under Bill of Lading / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick; Appeal Dismissed, Judgment Below Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the issuing carrier under a joint tariff is liable for loss occurring while goods are in the custody of another carrier
  2. 2 Whether the carrier was relieved of liability by the clause permitting removal to a public warehouse where no written notice of intention to remove was given
  3. 3 Which party bears the onus of proof that loss was not caused by the other carrier

Ratio Decidendi

The issuing carrier under a joint tariff remained liable for loss occurring while goods were in the custody of the subsequent carrier unless the issuing carrier affirmatively proved the loss was not caused by the other carrier or that the other carrier was relieved by express terms; clause 6's exemption for removal to a public warehouse required written notice to the owner and was not met, so the issuing carrier remained liable; damages are measured by the value at the place and time of shipment per clause 4.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondent affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment entered for Hatfield and Scott, Limited for the loss; damages assessed on basis of value at place and time of shipment (including freight and charges where applicable)