Cowans v. Marshall

Cowans v. Marshall

Because the jury's special findings failed to establish the specific negligent act alleged as the cause of the explosion (wet oakum attributable to defendants) while still returning a general verdict for the plaintiff — and because the trial judge misdirected the jury by treating a redundant general allegation as an independent cause — the plaintiff failed to prove the required specific causative negligence and the verdict could not stand; a new trial was ordered.

Citation
(1897) 28 SCR 161
Parties
Appellants: Robert Cowans and Others; Respondent: John Marshall
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1897
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence (master and Servant) / Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec) After Denial of New Trial; Hearing by Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Common Fault, Jury Trial, Assignment of Facts, Misdirection, New Trial, Pleading, Burden of Proof, Contributory Negligence
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Civil Procedure Master and Servant Law Common Fault Jury Trial Assignment of Facts Misdirection +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Cowans and Others

Appellants

John Marshall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence (master and Servant) / Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec) After Denial of New Trial; Hearing by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff pled and proved specific negligent acts sufficient to establish defendant liability and causation
  2. 2 Whether general verdict for plaintiff can be sustained when special findings negate the specific negligent acts alleged
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by treating a general allegation as an independent cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

Because the jury's special findings failed to establish the specific negligent act alleged as the cause of the explosion (wet oakum attributable to defendants) while still returning a general verdict for the plaintiff — and because the trial judge misdirected the jury by treating a redundant general allegation as an independent cause — the plaintiff failed to prove the required specific causative negligence and the verdict could not stand; a new trial was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in this Court and in the Court of Queen's Bench
  • New trial granted without costs