Town of Portland v. Griffiths

Town of Portland v. Griffiths

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the evidence before the jury was legally insufficient to establish municipal negligence or that the defect constituted a public nuisance or that municipal officers had notice; moreover the plaintiff was not shown to have been using the street in the manner alleged and her own knowledge of the defect made contributory negligence a live issue requiring proper submission to a jury.

Citation
(1885) 11 SCR 333
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Town of Portland; Plaintiff/respondent: Miriam Griffiths
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 1885
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (defective Sidewalk) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick; Rule Nisi for New Trial Discharged Below; Appeal Heard on Record and New Trial Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Defective Sidewalk, Duty to Repair, Contributory Negligence, Notice to Municipality, Lawful Use of Street, Evidentiary Sufficiency
Source Language
English
Torts Municipal Law Negligence Public Nuisance Defective Sidewalk Duty to Repair Contributory Negligence Notice to Municipality +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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Town of Portland

Defendant/appellant

Miriam Griffiths

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (defective Sidewalk) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick; Rule Nisi for New Trial Discharged Below; Appeal Heard on Record and New Trial Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the municipality owed and breached a legal duty to repair the sidewalk such that a private action for peculiar damage lies
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was lawfully using the street as alleged in the declaration
  3. 3 Whether the evidence was sufficient to show the defect constituted a public nuisance or that municipal officers had notice

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the evidence before the jury was legally insufficient to establish municipal negligence or that the defect constituted a public nuisance or that municipal officers had notice; moreover the plaintiff was not shown to have been using the street in the manner alleged and her own knowledge of the defect made contributory negligence a live issue requiring proper submission to a jury.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • New trial granted
  • Costs awarded to appellants