Littley v. Brooks and Canadian National Ry. Co.

Littley v. Brooks and Canadian National Ry. Co.

The appellants produced more than a mere scintilla of evidence (notably Worgan’s testimony) from which negligence might reasonably be inferred and therefore the trial judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury; the 1917 Ontario Railway and Municipal Board order is not binding after federal assumption of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1930] SCR 416
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Laura Littley; Plaintiff (appellant): Stanley Littley (an infant by his next friend Laura Littley); Defendant (motorman): Mansford Brooks; Defendant (railway Company): Canadian National Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 April 1930
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (fatal Accidents Act Claim) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Ontario; Judgment on Appeal With Direction for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial non-suit set aside; new trial ordered; costs to appellants in this Court and Appellate Division; costs of abortive trial to abide the result of the new trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty to Warn, Railway Crossing Safety, Admissibility of Administrative Orders, Withdrawal of Case From Jury, New Trial
Source Language
english
Torts Railway Law Evidence Administrative Law Civil Procedure Negligence Duty to Warn Railway Crossing Safety +3 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laura Littley

Plaintiff (appellant)

Stanley Littley (an infant by his next friend Laura Littley)

Plaintiff (appellant)

Mansford Brooks

Defendant (motorman)

Canadian National Railway Company

Defendant (railway Company)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (fatal Accidents Act Claim) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Ontario; Judgment on Appeal With Direction for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs adduced sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury
  3. 3 Whether a 1917 order of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board remained admissible after the railway became subject to federal jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants produced more than a mere scintilla of evidence (notably Worgan’s testimony) from which negligence might reasonably be inferred and therefore the trial judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury; the 1917 Ontario Railway and Municipal Board order is not binding after federal assumption of control but is admissible as evidence of an adjudication that the crossing was dangerous unless it has been superseded by a subsequent competent inquiry or conditions have materially changed; appeal allowed and new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial non-suit set aside; new trial ordered; costs to appellants in this Court and Appellate Division; costs of abortive trial to abide the result of the new trial.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in the Supreme Court of Canada and in the Appellate Division of Ontario
  • Order granting non-suit and dismissing action set aside