Lewis v. Grand Trunk Railway Pacific Co.

Lewis v. Grand Trunk Railway Pacific Co.

The jury's general finding of negligence as "a defective roadbed" and lack of a watchman was insufficient and unsupported by the evidence; there was no reasonable evidence that the roadbed or absence of a watchman caused the derailment and death—evidence pointed to the train running in excess of the prescribed five...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1915) 52 SCR 227
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Mary E. Lewis, Administratrix of Edwin E. Lewis; Defendant/respondent: The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 1915
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondents and nonsuit entered
Legal Topics
Negligence, Unsafe Roadbed, Speed Orders, Jurisdiction to Sue Extraterritorially, Fatal Accidents Act (lord Campbell's Act), Jury Findings
Source Language
english
Torts Railway Law Conflict of Laws Negligence Unsafe Roadbed Speed Orders Jurisdiction to Sue Extraterritorially Fatal Accidents Act (lord Campbell's Act) +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary E. Lewis, Administratrix of Edwin E. Lewis

Plaintiff/appellant

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defective roadbed and failure to provide a watchman constituted negligence by the railway company
  2. 2 Whether excessive speed or disobedience of a speed order by the deceased was the proximate cause of the derailment and death
  3. 3 Whether Manitoba courts could entertain and enforce a delictual obligation arising from an accident that occurred in another province

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's general finding of negligence as "a defective roadbed" and lack of a watchman was insufficient and unsupported by the evidence; there was no reasonable evidence that the roadbed or absence of a watchman caused the derailment and death—evidence pointed to the train running in excess of the prescribed five miles per hour and that the deceased's excessive speed was the plausible cause—therefore the verdict could not stand and judgment for the respondents (nonsuit) was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondents and nonsuit entered

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment entered for the respondents