Mader v. Halifax Electric Tramway Co.

Mader v. Halifax Electric Tramway Co.

General findings of negligence by a jury are insufficient to support a judgment unless the jury is required to find and does find what specific negligent act caused the injury; where a statutory privilege exists to remove snow the company must exercise that privilege reasonably and without negligence; because the jury questions failed to establish the necessary causal link the findings were set aside and a new trial was proper.

Citation
(1905) 37 SCR 94
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Anthony J. Mader; Respondent / Defendant: The Halifax Electric Tramway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1905
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (order for New Trial Under Review)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ordering a new trial upheld.
Legal Topics
Statutory Privilege, Duty of Care, Proximate Cause, Jury Findings, New Trial, Evidence
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Municipal Law Statutory Privilege Duty of Care Proximate Cause Jury Findings New Trial +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony J. Mader

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Halifax Electric Tramway Company

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (order for New Trial Under Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether general jury findings of negligence are sufficient to support a verdict absent a specific finding that such negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury
  2. 2 Whether a street railway company exercising a statutory privilege to remove snow owes a duty to exercise that privilege reasonably and without negligence
  3. 3 Whether the form of questions put to a jury can render verdict findings inadequate to support judgment

Ratio Decidendi

General findings of negligence by a jury are insufficient to support a judgment unless the jury is required to find and does find what specific negligent act caused the injury; where a statutory privilege exists to remove snow the company must exercise that privilege reasonably and without negligence; because the jury questions failed to establish the necessary causal link the findings were set aside and a new trial was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ordering a new trial upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • The prior order of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia setting aside the jury findings and directing a new trial stands.