Prescott (Town) v. Connell

Prescott (Town) v. Connell

Majority: The defendants’ negligence in failing to properly cover the blast was the proximate and direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries because it immediately produced the state of mind that instinctively impelled the plaintiff to attempt to stop his horses and his actions were those a reasonable person would be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1893) 22 SCR 147
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Town of Prescott; Plaintiff/respondent: Thomas A. Connell
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1893
Procedural Posture
Torts / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff in the court below affirmed (majority), one dissent
Legal Topics
Proximate Cause, Rescue Doctrine, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Blasting Operations
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Proximate Cause Rescue Doctrine Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Blasting Operations

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

Parties

Town of Prescott

Defendant/appellant

Thomas A. Connell

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Torts / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant’s negligent blasting was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff’s voluntary exposure to danger was an intervening act breaking the causal chain
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff’s conduct constituted contributory negligence barring recovery

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The defendants’ negligence in failing to properly cover the blast was the proximate and direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries because it immediately produced the state of mind that instinctively impelled the plaintiff to attempt to stop his horses and his actions were those a reasonable person would be expected to take; therefore the defendants are liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff in the court below affirmed (majority), one dissent

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff in amount $3,000