Harper v. Town of Prescott

Harper v. Town of Prescott

Majority held that on the proven facts there was not "gross negligence" within s.480(3) — sanding had been performed and the time and opportunity to remedy after notice were limited — therefore the municipality was not liable for the appellant's injuries and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1940] SCR 688
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Mary Emmeline Harper; Respondent / Defendant: The Municipal Corporation of the Town of Prescott
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 1940
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Personal Injury / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Municipal Liability, Sidewalk Ice, Statutory Interpretation of "gross Negligence", Notice and Opportunity to Remedy, Damages for Personal Injury
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Tort Negligence Municipal Liability Sidewalk Ice Statutory Interpretation of "gross Negligence" Notice and Opportunity to Remedy Damages for Personal Injury

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Emmeline Harper

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Municipal Corporation of the Town of Prescott

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Personal Injury / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the municipality was guilty of "gross negligence" within s.480(3) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1937
  2. 2 Whether findings of fact by the trial judge (actual notice, adequacy and efficacy of sanding, foreman conduct) should be disturbed on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the municipal conduct (use of cold sand, failure to take further steps after notice) met the statutory threshold for liability

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that on the proven facts there was not "gross negligence" within s.480(3) — sanding had been performed and the time and opportunity to remedy after notice were limited — therefore the municipality was not liable for the appellant's injuries and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed