Nixon v. Ottawa Electric Ry. Co.

Nixon v. Ottawa Electric Ry. Co.

There was ample evidence for the jury to find that the motorman was negligent in running the car through the station at excessive speed and that the plaintiff was partly negligent; the jury's apportionment of fault (90% defendant, 10% plaintiff) was not one that could not fairly be made and must be given effect under The Negligence Act, 1930 (Ont.), so judgment was entered for the plaintiff for nine‑tenths of the jury‑assessed damages.

Citation
[1933] SCR 154
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ethel Nixon; Defendant/respondent: The Ottawa Electric Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 1933
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for plaintiff for nine‑tenths of jury‑assessed damages with costs.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Apportionment of Fault, Jury Findings, Non Suit, Sufficiency of Evidence
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Standard of Care Apportionment of Fault Jury Findings Non Suit +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ethel Nixon

Plaintiff/appellant

The Ottawa Electric Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the motorman was negligent?
  2. 2 Was the plaintiff contributorily negligent?
  3. 3 Could the trial judge properly grant a non-suit for lack of evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

There was ample evidence for the jury to find that the motorman was negligent in running the car through the station at excessive speed and that the plaintiff was partly negligent; the jury's apportionment of fault (90% defendant, 10% plaintiff) was not one that could not fairly be made and must be given effect under The Negligence Act, 1930 (Ont.), so judgment was entered for the plaintiff for nine‑tenths of the jury‑assessed damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for plaintiff for nine‑tenths of jury‑assessed damages with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff for $15,801.45 with costs throughout