Long v. Toronto Rway. Co.

Long v. Toronto Rway. Co.

Majority held the jury were entitled to find that when the motorman first saw the deceased absorbed and heading toward the tracks he should have realized the risk and kept the car under proper control; the motorman's failure to do so was the direct and proximate cause of the death and the railway was liable despite the deceased's negligence, therefore the appeal was allowed and the trial judgment for the plaintiff restored.

Citation
(1914) 50 SCR 224
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Mary Long; Defendant/respondent: The Toronto Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 1914
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (wrongful Death) / Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff at trial restored; costs to appellant
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Proximate Cause, Standard of Care for Motorman, Reasonable Care, Jury Findings
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Railway Law Wrongful Death Personal Injury Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Proximate Cause +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Long

Plaintiff/appellant

The Toronto Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motorman owed and breached a duty to keep the car under proper control upon first seeing the pedestrian
  2. 2 Whether the deceased's contributory negligence was the proximate cause barring recovery
  3. 3 Whether, notwithstanding the deceased's negligence, the defendant could by reasonable care have avoided the accident

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the jury were entitled to find that when the motorman first saw the deceased absorbed and heading toward the tracks he should have realized the risk and kept the car under proper control; the motorman's failure to do so was the direct and proximate cause of the death and the railway was liable despite the deceased's negligence, therefore the appeal was allowed and the trial judgment for the plaintiff restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff at trial restored; costs to appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of trial judge restored in favour of plaintiff