Jamieson v. Harris

Jamieson v. Harris

Majority held that although the falling plank caused the accident, the jury did not make a clear finding that the plank fell due to defendant's negligence or that any negligence found was the proximate cause of death; because many questions were irrelevant or confusing and left the crucial issue undecided, a new trial was required.

Citation
(1905) 35 SCR 625
Parties
Appellant/defendant: James A. Jamieson; Respondent/plaintiff: Mary Elizabeth Harris
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 1905
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Proximate Cause, Foreseeability, Master and Servant, Jury Findings, New Trial, Trial Procedure, Damages
Source Language
English
Labour Law Tort Negligence Employer Liability Civil Procedure Proximate Cause Foreseeability Master and Servant +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James A. Jamieson

Appellant/defendant

Mary Elizabeth Harris

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury findings established that the falling plank was caused by the defendant's negligence and was the proximate cause of death
  2. 2 Whether the multiplicity and form of questions submitted to the jury were irrelevant or confusing and warranted a new trial
  3. 3 Whether the defendant, as employer/contractor, failed to take reasonable precautions that a prudent person should have foreseen

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that although the falling plank caused the accident, the jury did not make a clear finding that the plank fell due to defendant's negligence or that any negligence found was the proximate cause of death; because many questions were irrelevant or confusing and left the crucial issue undecided, a new trial was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • New trial ordered
  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant