Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Rainville

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Rainville

The jury found, on evidence, that the defendants negligently permitted an accumulation of dry grass/rubbish on their right-of-way which caused the fire from a spark; those factual findings were affirmed by the trial court and the Court of Appeal and, absent clear error, this Court will not disturb them — accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the judgment for plaintiffs stands.

Citation
(1898) 29 SCR 201
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada; Plaintiff/respondent: Alexander Rainville; Plaintiff/respondent: Elizabeth Rainville
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 1898
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Railway Liability, Fire Damage From Sparks, Duty to Remove Combustible Material From Right of Way, Deference to Jury and Concurrent Appellate Findings
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Railway Liability Fire Damage From Sparks Duty to Remove Combustible Material From Right of Way Deference to Jury and Concurrent Appellate Findings

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada

Defendant/appellant

Alexander Rainville

Plaintiff/respondent

Elizabeth Rainville

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a railway is liable for fire damage allegedly caused by sparks emitted from its engines when there is no direct evidence of origin of fire
  2. 2 Whether permitting an accumulation of dry grass or rubbish on the railway right-of-way constitutes actionable negligence
  3. 3 Whether concurrent factual findings by a jury and two appellate courts should be disturbed by a second appellate court

Ratio Decidendi

The jury found, on evidence, that the defendants negligently permitted an accumulation of dry grass/rubbish on their right-of-way which caused the fire from a spark; those factual findings were affirmed by the trial court and the Court of Appeal and, absent clear error, this Court will not disturb them — accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the judgment for plaintiffs stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirming trial judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed.