McKelvey v. Le Roi Mining Co.

McKelvey v. Le Roi Mining Co.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the non-continuance of the guide-rails was the proximate cause of the injury and that the defendants were liable at common law; therefore the jury verdict for $3,000 should not have been disregarded and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs.

Citation
(1902) 32 SCR 664
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Lawrence W. McKelvey; Respondent / Defendant: Le Roi Mining Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 1902
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action; Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Jury Verdict and Lower Court Judgments Reviewed
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the courts below reversed; judgment entered for appellant on jury verdict.
Legal Topics
Proximate Cause, Employer Liability, Duty of Care, Jury Verdict Review, Jurisdictional Objection on Appeal, New Points of Law on Appeal
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Mining Regulation Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Proximate Cause Employer Liability Duty of Care +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence W. McKelvey

Appellant / Plaintiff

Le Roi Mining Company

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action; Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Jury Verdict and Lower Court Judgments Reviewed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were liable at common law for injuries caused by non-continuance of guide-rails and resulting failure of safety clutches
  2. 2 Whether the Inspection of Metalliferous Mines Act and its 1899 amendment applied to require a bulkhead or pentice protecting shaft workmen
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court may consider questions of law appearing on the record though not raised below when no evidence could have affected them

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the non-continuance of the guide-rails was the proximate cause of the injury and that the defendants were liable at common law; therefore the jury verdict for $3,000 should not have been disregarded and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the courts below reversed; judgment entered for appellant on jury verdict.

Orders

  • Motion to quash appeal dismissed with costs
  • Appeal allowed with costs