T. Eaton Co. v. Sangster
- Citation
- (1895) 24 SCR 708
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 April 1895
- Posture
- Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 April 1895
- Posture
- Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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: McGregor03
Procedural history
Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether defendants were negligent in allowing a portable mirror to fall on the infant
- 02
Whether there was contributory negligence by the infant or guardian
- 03
Whether the trial judge properly held there was no evidence to be submitted to the jury and dismissed the action
- 04
Whether appellate courts properly reversed and ordered a new trial
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 2 April 1895
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.
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.