Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

T. Eaton Co. v. Sangster

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the appellate courts' reversal of the trial judge; where evidence could reasonably support a finding of negligence, dismissal for 'no evidence' was erroneous and a new trial was properly ordered.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of the Court of Appeal (affirming Divisional Court and ordering a new trial) stands

02

Material facts

Parties

T. Eaton Co.

Appellant/defendant Counsel: Shepley Q.C.

Sangster

Respondent/plaintiff Counsel: McGregor

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant argued the trial judge correctly found no evidence of negligence to be submitted to the jury and that the dismissal should stand.
Respondent
Respondent argued the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal were correct to reverse the dismissal, order a new trial and that the evidence was sufficient to submit negligence to a jury.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Common law negligence principles as applied by trial judge and appellate courts

    Plaintiff must adduce sufficient evidence of negligence to require submission of the case to a jury.

  2. 02

    Divisional Court and Court of Appeal decisions affirmed by Supreme Court

    An appellate court may reverse a trial judge's dismissal where evidence, properly viewed, could support a finding of negligence and thus warrant a new trial.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the appellate courts' reversal of the trial judge; where evidence could reasonably support a finding of negligence, dismissal for 'no evidence' was erroneous and a new trial was properly ordered.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of the Court of Appeal (affirming Divisional Court and ordering a new trial) stands

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 2 April 1895

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· 2 April 1895

(1895) 24 SCR 708

T. Eaton Co. v. Sangster Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1895-04-02 Report (1895) 24 SCR 708 Judges Henry, William Alexander; Strong, Samuel Henry; Fournier, Télesphore; Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Sedgewick, Robert; King, George Edwin On appeal from Ontario Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada T. Eaton Co. v. Sangster, (1895) 24 S.C.R. 708 Date: 1895-04-02 T. Eaton Co. and Sangster 1895: April 2. Present: Sir Henry Strong C.J., and Fournier, Taschereau, Sedgewick and King JJ. Negligence—Infant—Contributory negligence. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1], affirming the judgment of the Divisional Court[2] in favour of the plaintiff Sangster. The action was brought by plaintiff, as next friend to his infant son, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the son from a portable mirror falling upon him when in defendants’ store in Toronto with his mother. The trial judge found that there was no evidence of negligence by defendants to be submitted to the jury, and dismissed the action. The Divisional Court reversed his decision and ordered a new trial, and its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel for the appellants, dismissed the appeal without calling upon counsel for the other side. Appeal dismissed with costs. Shepley Q.C. for the appellants. McGregor for the respondent. [1] 21 Ont. App. R. 624. [2] 25 O.R. 78.

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.

T. Eaton Co. v. Sangster, (1895) 24 S.C.R. 708

Case cited

Court of Appeal for Ontario, 21 Ont. App. R. 624

Case cited

Divisional Court, 25 O.R. 78

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.