Gloster v. Toronto Electric Light Co.

Gloster v. Toronto Electric Light Co.

The bridge and adjoining strip were dedicated and accepted as a public highway; the defendant’s worn and uninsulated wires were thereby within the highway, constituted a public nuisance and a foreseeable danger to users (including children), and the utility had constructive notice and breached its duty of care — therefore the jury verdict for the plaintiffs should be restored and the defendant held liable.

Citation
(1906) 38 SCR 27
Parties
Appellants Plaintiffs: Francis Gloster (infant) by Cornelius Gloster his next friend; Cornelius Gloster; Respondent Defendant: The Toronto Electric Light Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 November 1906
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; verdict for plaintiffs reinstated; costs to appellants.
Legal Topics
Dedication of Highway, Duty of Care of Utilities, Constructive Notice, Public Nuisance, Liability for Injury to Child
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Public Highway Law Nuisance Electrical Safety Dedication of Highway Duty of Care of Utilities Constructive Notice +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Gloster (infant) by Cornelius Gloster his next friend; Cornelius Gloster

Appellants Plaintiffs

The Toronto Electric Light Company

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bridge and adjoining lands were dedicated as a public highway
  2. 2 Whether the defendant’s wires, as placed and in their defective condition, constituted a public nuisance and actionable negligence
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had notice or constructive knowledge of the widening of the bridge and proximity of wires

Ratio Decidendi

The bridge and adjoining strip were dedicated and accepted as a public highway; the defendant’s worn and uninsulated wires were thereby within the highway, constituted a public nuisance and a foreseeable danger to users (including children), and the utility had constructive notice and breached its duty of care — therefore the jury verdict for the plaintiffs should be restored and the defendant held liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; verdict for plaintiffs reinstated; costs to appellants.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the trial court restored and verdict for the plaintiffs reinstated