Sydney and Glace Bay Railway Co. v. Lott
- Citation
- (1907) 42 SCR 220
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 26 November 1907
- Posture
- Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 26 November 1907
- Posture
- Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The motorman's conduct in sounding a whistle then applying full speed without ensuring the child would retreat was reckless; timetable obligations do not excuse failure to take precautions, and the company's failure to provide a fender was evidence of negligence, rendering the company liable for the child's injuries.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia restored.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia maintaining the plaintiff's action and awarding costs is confirmed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sydney and Glace Bay Railway Co.
Appellant Counsel: Mellish K.C.Lott
Respondent Counsel: W. B. A. Ritchie K.C.; Tobin03
Procedural history
Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Was the motorman's conduct reckless such that the company is liable?
- 02
Does obligation to keep time-table or avoid passenger delay excuse failure to take precautions?
- 03
Is failure to provide a fender evidence of negligence?
- 04
What standard of care applies where an infant approaches tracks?
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The railway company argued the motorman gave warning and acted reasonably, that maintaining the timetable and avoiding delay justified prompt movement, and that absence of a fender or the child's movement did not constitute company negligence.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued the motorman acted recklessly by sounding a whistle then accelerating without ensuring the child was safe, that timetable obligations do not excuse failure to take precautions, and that lack of a fender was evidence of negligence leading to liability.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law negligence principles
Operators must exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to persons, including young children, when operating vehicles on tracks.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada decision in this case
Compliance with a timetable or desire to avoid delay does not excuse reckless or negligent operation.
- 03
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (41 N.S. Rep. 153) and considered by the Supreme Court of Canada
Failure to provide appropriate safety devices (e.g. a fender) may be admissible evidence of negligence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The motorman's conduct in sounding a whistle then applying full speed without ensuring the child would retreat was reckless; timetable obligations do not excuse failure to take precautions, and the company's failure to provide a fender was evidence of negligence, rendering the company liable for the child's injuries.
Obiter and limits
- Special vigilance is required where infants are present near tracks; operators must take affirmative steps to avert foreseeable harm.
- Evidence of absence of safety appliances is admissible as probative of negligence though not conclusive.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia restored.
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia maintaining the plaintiff's action and awarding costs is confirmed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 26 November 1907
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 26 November 1907
Sydney and Glace Bay Railway Co. v. Lott Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1907-11-26 Report (1907) 42 SCR 220 Judges Fitzpatrick, Charles; Girouard, Désiré; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Duff, Lyman Poore On appeal from Nova Scotia Subjects Transportation Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Sydney and Glace Bay Railway Co. v. Lott, (1907) 42 S.C.R. 220 Date: 1907-11-26 Sydney and Glace Bay Railway Co. v. Lott. 1907: November 25, 26. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and GIrouard, Davies, Idington and Duff JJ. Operation of tramway—Negligence—Injury to infant—Reckless running of car. APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia[1] reversing the judgment of Meagher J., at the trial, and maintaining the plaintiff's (respondent's) action with costs. Upon seeing a child (aged one year and eleven months) approaching the tracks, the motorman sounded the whistle of the car he was driving; the child stopped for a moment and looked towards the car; the motorman then applied full speed without waiting to see whether the child retreated or making any effort to remove it from the dangerous position; the child moved quickly towards the tracks, was struck by the car and received the injuries for which damages were claimed by the action. By the judgment appealed from, it was held that the conduct of the motorman was recklessness for which the company was
liable, that failure to take proper precautions to avert injury to the child was not to be excused by the alleged necessity of complying with the time-table and preventing delay to passengers and that the failure of the company to provide its car with a fender was evidence of negligence. After hearing counsel on behalf of the appellants and without calling upon counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Mellish K.C. for the appellants. W. B. A. Ritchie K.C. and Tobin for the respondent. [1] 41 N.S. Rep. 153.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.