Rickard v. Ramsay

Rickard v. Ramsay

When the junior defendant saw young children running toward the animals he was leading he had a duty to remove the animals from the grassy strip to the gravel roadway; his failure to do so was negligent and was the primary and proximate cause of the injury, and the child's act of running after the colt was a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1936] SCR 302
Parties
Defendant Appellant: W. C. Rickard; Defendant Appellant: Herbert Rickard; Plaintiff Respondent: James Ramsay; Plaintiff Respondent: George Con-Char Ramsay (infant)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 1936
Procedural Posture
Negligence (tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division of Alberta affirmed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Proximate Cause, Novus Actus (intervening Act), Liability of Owner and Agent
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Liability for Animals Damages Duty of Care Foreseeability Proximate Cause Novus Actus (intervening Act) +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. C. Rickard

Defendant Appellant

Herbert Rickard

Defendant Appellant

James Ramsay

Plaintiff Respondent

George Con-Char Ramsay (infant)

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Negligence (tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the junior defendant owed and breached a duty to foresee and avert danger to children by keeping horses on the grassy strip
  2. 2 Whether the child's act of running after the colt was an intervening act that relieved defendants of liability
  3. 3 Whether owner and handler are liable for damages caused by the colt

Ratio Decidendi

When the junior defendant saw young children running toward the animals he was leading he had a duty to remove the animals from the grassy strip to the gravel roadway; his failure to do so was negligent and was the primary and proximate cause of the injury, and the child's act of running after the colt was a foreseeable consequence that did not break the chain of causation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division of Alberta affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for infant plaintiff for $5,000 and for his father for $457 affirmed