British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Crompton

British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Crompton

Majority held appellants, having acquired the entire undertaking and its franchises under s.29, stood in the same position as the Consolidated Company and could invoke s.60; the injury arose from the company's works/operations and the plaintiff's claim was in tort and therefore subject to s.60; the action brought after six months was barred and the County Court dismissal was restored.

Citation
(1910) 43 SCR 1
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The British Columbia Electric Railway Co.; Respondent/plaintiff (infant Suing by Next Friend): Frank Crompton
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 1910
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Trial at County Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed; County Court judgment dismissing plaintiff's action restored; plaintiff's action held barred by s.60.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations (s.60), Transfer of Rights Under Mortgage/debenture (s.29), Duty of Care for Electricity Supply, Operation/works of Statutory Company, Contractual Versus Tortious Liability
Source Language
English
Statutory Interpretation Limitations of Actions Tort — Negligence Contract Law Corporate/property Law Statute of Limitations (s.60) Transfer of Rights Under Mortgage/debenture (s.29) Duty of Care for Electricity Supply +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The British Columbia Electric Railway Co.

Appellant/defendant

Frank Crompton

Respondent/plaintiff (infant Suing by Next Friend)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Trial at County Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchaser/assignee under s.29 is entitled to invoke s.60 limitation
  2. 2 Whether s.60 applies to injuries sustained by a non‑contracting household member supplied electricity under a contract with occupier
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's cause of action is founded in contract (and thus outside s.60) or in tort arising from the company's operations

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held appellants, having acquired the entire undertaking and its franchises under s.29, stood in the same position as the Consolidated Company and could invoke s.60; the injury arose from the company's works/operations and the plaintiff's claim was in tort and therefore subject to s.60; the action brought after six months was barred and the County Court dismissal was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; County Court judgment dismissing plaintiff's action restored; plaintiff's action held barred by s.60.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia reversed