Canadian Pacific Railway CO. v. Wood

Canadian Pacific Railway CO. v. Wood

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the trial judge rightly directed a verdict for the defendants because there was no legally sufficient evidence to send negligence and causation to the jury; therefore the order of the Court of Appeal directing a new trial was reversed and the trial judgment restored.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1911) 47 SCR 403
Parties
Appellant/defendant at Trial: Canadian Pacific Railway Co.; Respondent/plaintiff at Trial: Wood
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 May 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba After Trial Judgment Directing Verdict for Defendants
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered at trial restored
Legal Topics
Railway Yard Safety, Switching Operations, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Non Suit and Directed Verdict, New Trial
Source Language
english
Transportation Tort Employment Law Workers' Compensation Civil Procedure Railway Yard Safety Switching Operations Contributory Negligence +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Co.

Appellant/defendant at Trial

Wood

Respondent/plaintiff at Trial

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba After Trial Judgment Directing Verdict for Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to require submission of negligence and causation to a jury
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was precluded by volenti non fit injuria or was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Interaction of the Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act with plaintiff's common law remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the trial judge rightly directed a verdict for the defendants because there was no legally sufficient evidence to send negligence and causation to the jury; therefore the order of the Court of Appeal directing a new trial was reversed and the trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered at trial restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment entered at trial restoring directed verdict for defendants