The Royal Trust Company v. Toronto Transportation Commission

The Royal Trust Company v. Toronto Transportation Commission

The motorman should have perceived the probability of collision and failed to take measures to avoid it; the collision was caused by the joint negligence of the motorman and the motorist and therefore the trial judge’s apportionment of liability (50/50) was correct and must be restored; a statutory right of way does not absolve the motorman from taking precautions against apparent danger.

Citation
[1935] SCR 671
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: The Royal Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Walter Abbott, Deceased; Plaintiff/appellant: Louisa Alexandra Abbott; Defendant/respondent: Toronto Transportation Commission
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1935
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Negligence (fatal Accidents) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Trial Judgment Assessed Contributory Negligence 50/50
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Joint Negligence, Causation, Evidence Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness, Fatal Accidents Act
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Transport/street Railway Law Right of Way Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Joint Negligence Causation +2 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Royal Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Walter Abbott, Deceased

Plaintiff/appellant

Louisa Alexandra Abbott

Plaintiff/appellant

Toronto Transportation Commission

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Negligence (fatal Accidents) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Trial Judgment Assessed Contributory Negligence 50/50

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the street car motorman negligent in approaching the intersection?
  2. 2 Did the statutory right of way absolve the motorman of duty to avoid apparent danger?
  3. 3 Was the collision caused by joint/concurrent negligence and subject to the Contributory Negligence Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The motorman should have perceived the probability of collision and failed to take measures to avoid it; the collision was caused by the joint negligence of the motorman and the motorist and therefore the trial judge’s apportionment of liability (50/50) was correct and must be restored; a statutory right of way does not absolve the motorman from taking precautions against apparent danger.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored.

Orders

  • Restore trial judgments awarding one-half of assessed damages to plaintiffs
  • Costs awarded to appellants throughout