Spencer v. Field

Spencer v. Field

Appeal allowed; the trial judgment dismissing the respondents' action was restored because the case was tried and submitted to the jury solely as negligence with the burden on the plaintiffs, res ipsa loquitur was not relied on at trial and cannot be invoked for the first time on appeal, and the jury verdict that the burns were accidental was open on the evidence.

Citation
[1939] SCR 36
Parties
Appellant (defendant): David Spencer Limited; Respondent (plaintiff): Edna Field; Respondent (plaintiff): James W. Field
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 1938
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge dismissing respondents' action restored.
Legal Topics
Res Ipsa Loquitur, Onus of Proof, Jury Charge, New Trial, Damages, Appeal Limitations
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Civil Procedure Res Ipsa Loquitur Onus of Proof Jury Charge New Trial Damages +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Spencer Limited

Appellant (defendant)

Edna Field

Respondent (plaintiff)

James W. Field

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to shift the burden of proof to the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to onus of proof
  3. 3 Whether respondents could rely on res ipsa loquitur on appeal when it was not pleaded or argued at trial

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed; the trial judgment dismissing the respondents' action was restored because the case was tried and submitted to the jury solely as negligence with the burden on the plaintiffs, res ipsa loquitur was not relied on at trial and cannot be invoked for the first time on appeal, and the jury verdict that the burns were accidental was open on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge dismissing respondents' action restored.

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial judge dismissing respondents' action restored
  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant throughout