Creveling v. Canadian Bridge Co.

Creveling v. Canadian Bridge Co.

Majority held the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the jury's general verdict because there was evidence to support findings of a defective signalling system and lack of guards and the trial judge presented the issues sufficiently; appeal was allowed and trial judgment restored; additionally, appellate courts should not entertain new objections to a judge's charge that were not taken at trial or on first appeal absent exceptional circumstances.

Citation
(1915) 51 SCR 216
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Peter Creveling; Defendant/respondent: The Canadian Bridge Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 1915
Procedural Posture
Tort — Negligence / Employers' Liability / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia (judgment Below Set Aside and New Trial Ordered)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of trial court restored.
Legal Topics
Defective System of Signals, Lack of Guards, Jury Verdict Review, Appellate Review of Misdirection, Assumption of Risk (volens), New Trial Order
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Employers' Liability Civil Procedure Defective System of Signals Lack of Guards Jury Verdict Review Appellate Review of Misdirection +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Creveling

Plaintiff/appellant

The Canadian Bridge Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort — Negligence / Employers' Liability / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia (judgment Below Set Aside and New Trial Ordered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the signalling system for the travelling crane was defective
  2. 2 Whether absence of a mechanical guard rendered employer liable at common law
  3. 3 Whether the jury's general verdict was supported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the jury's general verdict because there was evidence to support findings of a defective signalling system and lack of guards and the trial judge presented the issues sufficiently; appeal was allowed and trial judgment restored; additionally, appellate courts should not entertain new objections to a judge's charge that were not taken at trial or on first appeal absent exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of trial court restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant
  • Judgment entered at trial restored