Montreal Street Ry. Co. v. Deslongchamps

Montreal Street Ry. Co. v. Deslongchamps

Where the evidence was contradictory, the jury's general verdict finding negligence by the oncoming car (undue speed and failure to sound the gong) and contributory negligence by the plaintiff was supported by the record; there was no misdirection or irregularity warranting interference, so the appellate courts correctly affirmed the trial judgment.

Citation
(1906) 37 SCR 685
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Montreal Street Railway Co.; Respondent/plaintiff: Joseph Deslongchamps
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 1906
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (passenger Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (trial Jury Verdict Affirmed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench and Superior Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Contributory Negligence, Evidence and Jury Verdict, Signalling Obligations, Speed of Vehicles
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Railway Law Passenger Carriage Duty of Care Standard of Care Contributory Negligence Evidence and Jury Verdict +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montreal Street Railway Co.

Appellant/defendant

Joseph Deslongchamps

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (passenger Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (trial Jury Verdict Affirmed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the street railway company was negligent in operating at undue speed and failing to sound the gong when passing another car
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in alighting and crossing behind the car
  3. 3 Whether the jury verdict was vitiated by misdirection, irregularity or was against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Where the evidence was contradictory, the jury's general verdict finding negligence by the oncoming car (undue speed and failure to sound the gong) and contributory negligence by the plaintiff was supported by the record; there was no misdirection or irregularity warranting interference, so the appellate courts correctly affirmed the trial judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench and Superior Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff for $3,500 affirmed