Toronto Ry. Co. v. Mulvaney

Toronto Ry. Co. v. Mulvaney

The jury verdict was upheld because the evidence justified findings that the eastbound car was operated at excessive speed and failed to sound its gong and that the westbound car moved forward, and although the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, the defendants by exercise of reasonable care could nevertheless have avoided the accident; therefore plaintiffs were entitled to damages. The award of funeral expenses was recognized as improper under later authority but the point was not raised in the Court of Appeal so relief was denied.

Citation
(1907) 38 SCR 327
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Toronto Railway Company; Respondent Plaintiff: Alexander Mulvaney; Respondent Plaintiff: Mary Mulvaney
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 1907
Procedural Posture
Tort Wrongful Death (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario Affirming Trial Verdict
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal and trial verdict affirmed
Legal Topics
Excessive Speed, Failure to Sound Gong, Proximate Cause, Jury Questions on Contributory Negligence, Recoverability of Funeral Expenses
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Street Railway Law Contributory Negligence Damages Excessive Speed Failure to Sound Gong Proximate Cause +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toronto Railway Company

Appellant Defendant

Alexander Mulvaney

Respondent Plaintiff

Mary Mulvaney

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort Wrongful Death (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario Affirming Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were negligent in operating street railway (speed and failure to sound gong)
  2. 2 Whether deceased's contributory negligence barred recovery
  3. 3 Whether defendants could have avoided accident despite deceased's contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The jury verdict was upheld because the evidence justified findings that the eastbound car was operated at excessive speed and failed to sound its gong and that the westbound car moved forward, and although the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, the defendants by exercise of reasonable care could nevertheless have avoided the accident; therefore plaintiffs were entitled to damages. The award of funeral expenses was recognized as improper under later authority but the point was not raised in the Court of Appeal so relief was denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal and trial verdict affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Verdict for plaintiffs upheld: $500 to father and $1,500 to mother (total $2,000)