Brenner v. Toronto Ry. Co.

Brenner v. Toronto Ry. Co.

Although aspects of the trial judge’s charge on company rules could be criticized, the jury found no primary negligence by the defendants and found plaintiff’s contributory negligence was the proximate cause; those findings dispose of the claim and no prejudicial error requiring a new trial was shown, so the trial judgment dismissing the action was correctly upheld.

Citation
(1908) 40 SCR 540
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Eva Brenner (an infant by her next friend); Plaintiff Appellant: Harris Brenner; Defendant Respondent: The Toronto Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed and original trial judgment dismissing the action restored.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Street Railway Company Rules, Jury Directions
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Contributory Negligence Street Railway Company Rules Jury Directions

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

Parties

Eva Brenner (an infant by her next friend)

Plaintiff Appellant

Harris Brenner

Plaintiff Appellant

The Toronto Railway Company

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motorman and company were negligent in operation of the streetcar
  2. 2 Whether company rules (Rule 58) were admissible and should have been treated as determinative standard of care
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by withdrawing company rules from consideration

Ratio Decidendi

Although aspects of the trial judge’s charge on company rules could be criticized, the jury found no primary negligence by the defendants and found plaintiff’s contributory negligence was the proximate cause; those findings dispose of the claim and no prejudicial error requiring a new trial was shown, so the trial judgment dismissing the action was correctly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed and original trial judgment dismissing the action restored.

Orders

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