Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Sydney and Glace Bay Railway Co. v. Lott

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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.; Tobin

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 01

    Common law negligence principles

    Operators must exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to persons, including young children, when operating vehicles on tracks.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 26 November 1907

(1907) 42 SCR 220

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Sydney and Glace Bay Railway Co. v. Lott, (1907) 42 S.C.R. 220

Case cited

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, 41 N.S. Rep. 153

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.