Geall v. Dominion Creosoting Co. / Salter v. Dominion Creosoting Co.

Geall v. Dominion Creosoting Co. / Salter v. Dominion Creosoting Co.

Majority held that respondent, having moved and resecured the cars by less effective means and left them on a public highway near a school at noon, ought reasonably to have anticipated that school children might interfere; that failure to take adequate precautions made respondent's negligence a proximate cause of the collision and justified restoring the trial judgments against respondent.

Citation
(1917) 55 SCR 587
Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Grace S. Geall; Appellant Plaintiff: George W. Adams; Appellant Plaintiff: Joseph A. Salter; Respondent Defendant: The Dominion Creosoting Company, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 1917
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence / Appeal From Court of Appeal for British Columbia to Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed with costs; judgments of the trial courts against respondent restored
Legal Topics
Foreseeability, Intervening Act, Proximate Cause, Duty to Guard Against Third‑party Interference, Liability for Dangerous Condition
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Foreseeability Intervening Act Proximate Cause Duty to Guard Against Third‑party Interference Liability for Dangerous Condition

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace S. Geall

Appellant Plaintiff

George W. Adams

Appellant Plaintiff

Joseph A. Salter

Appellant Plaintiff

The Dominion Creosoting Company, Limited

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence / Appeal From Court of Appeal for British Columbia to Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent should have foreseen and guarded against third‑party (school boys) interference with unsecured freight cars
  2. 2 Whether the intervening act of the school boys was a novus actus breaking the chain of causation
  3. 3 Whether the issue of foreseeability and duty to guard is a question of law or fact for the jury

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that respondent, having moved and resecured the cars by less effective means and left them on a public highway near a school at noon, ought reasonably to have anticipated that school children might interfere; that failure to take adequate precautions made respondent's negligence a proximate cause of the collision and justified restoring the trial judgments against respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed with costs; judgments of the trial courts against respondent restored

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Judgments of the trial courts restoring verdicts against The Dominion Creosoting Company, Limited restored