Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Eggleston

Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Eggleston

Because the animals were trespassers and there was insufficient proof that the engineer was negligent after he became aware of them, the railway owed no liability; the appeal is allowed and the action dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1905) 36 SCR 641
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiffs: William H. Eggleston and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence) — Railway Collision With Animals / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of the North West Territories
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Railway Liability, Straying Animals, Duty to Trespassers, Lookout and Stopping Duty, Foreseeability
Source Language
English
Transportation Torts Negligence Property Railway Liability Straying Animals Duty to Trespassers Lookout and Stopping Duty +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Appellant/defendant

William H. Eggleston and Others

Respondent/plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence) — Railway Collision With Animals / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of the North West Territories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a railway owes a duty to avoid injuring animals wrongfully on its track absent knowledge of their presence
  2. 2 Whether the engine-driver was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout or in failing to stop after discovery
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances of roaming livestock in the Territories alter the duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

Because the animals were trespassers and there was insufficient proof that the engineer was negligent after he became aware of them, the railway owed no liability; the appeal is allowed and the action dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Action dismissed with costs