Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Simpson

Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Simpson

The jury's findings that the plaintiff did not know the ticket contained limiting conditions, did not sign it, and that the carrier failed to do what was reasonably sufficient to give notice were supported by evidence; therefore the exemption clause did not bar recovery and the trial judgment for the respondent was properly affirmed (appeal dismissed).

Citation
(1922) 63 SCR 361
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Company; Respondent (plaintiff): Marie Simpson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury; Contract of Carriage) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondent affirmed
Legal Topics
Passenger Ticket Conditions, Exclusion Clauses, Reasonable Notice, Assent and Signature, Jury Fact‑finding, Carrier Liability, Statutory Public Notice (canada Shipping Act S.962)
Source Language
English
Transportation Contract Tort Evidence Passenger Ticket Conditions Exclusion Clauses Reasonable Notice Assent and Signature +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Company

Appellant (defendant)

Marie Simpson

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury; Contract of Carriage) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether printed conditions on a passenger ticket exempt the carrier from liability for the plaintiff's injury
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the limiting conditions on the ticket or assented by signature
  3. 3 Whether the carrier did what was reasonably sufficient to bring the conditions to the passenger's attention (reasonable notice)

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's findings that the plaintiff did not know the ticket contained limiting conditions, did not sign it, and that the carrier failed to do what was reasonably sufficient to give notice were supported by evidence; therefore the exemption clause did not bar recovery and the trial judgment for the respondent was properly affirmed (appeal dismissed).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondent affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff (Marie Simpson) on jury verdict