Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Murray

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Murray

Where circumstantial evidence shows a defective piece of equipment created a hazard, the deceased was engaged in the task of operating that equipment and was last seen using it shortly before death, a jury may reasonably infer the defect caused the death; such an inference is sufficient to defeat a non-suit and sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.

Citation
[1932] SCR 112
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Respondent (plaintiff): Isabel Murray
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 1931
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (wrongful Death) / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Defective Brake, Causation by Inference, Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence, Duty to Inspect and Maintain Equipment, Motion for Non Suit
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Employer Liability Product/equipment Safety Defective Brake Causation by Inference Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence Duty to Inspect and Maintain Equipment +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Appellant (defendant)

Isabel Murray

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (wrongful Death) / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's negligence in permitting a defective brake to be used caused the death of the employee
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to infer causation and deny a non-suit motion

Ratio Decidendi

Where circumstantial evidence shows a defective piece of equipment created a hazard, the deceased was engaged in the task of operating that equipment and was last seen using it shortly before death, a jury may reasonably infer the defect caused the death; such an inference is sufficient to defeat a non-suit and sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below affirmed.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $6,000 affirmed
  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent