Storry v. Canadian National Ry. Co.

Storry v. Canadian National Ry. Co.

There was sufficient evidence that the railway crew may have been negligent in not stopping the train and that such negligence could be a proximate cause of both the car damage and the plaintiff's personal injuries; therefore the personal injury and property damage claims should have been submitted to a jury and the non-suit was erroneous; a new trial was ordered.

Citation
[1940] SCR 491
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Edgar A. Storry; Respondent (defendant): Canadian National Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 1940
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (railway Crossing) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; New Trial Ordered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered on both claims
Legal Topics
Causation, Duty of Care, Remoteness of Damage, Jury Trial Vs Non Suit, Appellate Review Powers
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Railway Law Statutory Interpretation Causation Duty of Care Remoteness of Damage Jury Trial Vs Non Suit +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edgar A. Storry

Appellant (plaintiff)

Canadian National Railway Company

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (railway Crossing) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the railway was negligent in failing to stop the train to avoid collision
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the personal injury claim from the jury

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence that the railway crew may have been negligent in not stopping the train and that such negligence could be a proximate cause of both the car damage and the plaintiff's personal injuries; therefore the personal injury and property damage claims should have been submitted to a jury and the non-suit was erroneous; a new trial was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered on both claims

Orders

  • New trial ordered in respect of both personal injuries and damage to the motor car
  • Costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court to the appellant