Toronto Ry. Co. v. Toms

Toronto Ry. Co. v. Toms

When negligence causes a physical impact, resulting nervous injuries are a direct and recoverable consequence of that negligence; where medical evidence shows the nervous and physical injuries cannot be distinguished, the jury should not be directed to apportion damages and recovery may include both elements; Coultas is confined to cases of mere terror without physical injury.

Citation
(1911) 44 SCR 268
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Toronto Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiff: William Toms
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 1911
Procedural Posture
Torts — Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Nervous Shock, Mental Injury, Remoteness of Damage, Measure of Damages, Apportionment of Damages
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Damages Personal Injury Nervous Shock Mental Injury Remoteness of Damage Measure of Damages +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toronto Railway Company

Appellant/defendant

William Toms

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Torts — Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jury should be directed to apportion damages between physical and nervous injuries
  2. 2 Whether nervous injury caused by shock is a recoverable direct result of defendant's negligence when physical impact occurred
  3. 3 Whether Victorian Railway Commissioners v. Coultas applies to cases involving physical impact

Ratio Decidendi

When negligence causes a physical impact, resulting nervous injuries are a direct and recoverable consequence of that negligence; where medical evidence shows the nervous and physical injuries cannot be distinguished, the jury should not be directed to apportion damages and recovery may include both elements; Coultas is confined to cases of mere terror without physical injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs