Canadian National Railways v. Lancia

Canadian National Railways v. Lancia

Where a jury finds a factual act (shouting), the court must decide whether that act, in the circumstances found, constitutes a legal fault; here shouting by the employee, made in exigent circumstances to avert greater danger to a trespassing child, was not a fault in law nor the proximate cause of injury, and therefore the verdict could not stand and the plaintiff's action must be dismissed.

Citation
[1949] SCR 177
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Canadian National Railways; Respondent/plaintiff: Joseph Lancia es qual
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 1949
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Quebec; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Duty to Trespasser, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Role of Jury Vs Judge, Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict
Source Language
English
Tort Transportation Law Railway Law Civil Procedure Trespass Duty to Trespasser Contributory Negligence Causation +2 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian National Railways

Appellant/defendant

Joseph Lancia es qual

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Quebec; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the railway employee's shouting constituted legal fault/negligence
  2. 2 What duty the railway/servant owes to a trespasser child
  3. 3 Whether the jury's finding could be treated as a legal finding of fault or should be reviewed by the judge

Ratio Decidendi

Where a jury finds a factual act (shouting), the court must decide whether that act, in the circumstances found, constitutes a legal fault; here shouting by the employee, made in exigent circumstances to avert greater danger to a trespassing child, was not a fault in law nor the proximate cause of injury, and therefore the verdict could not stand and the plaintiff's action must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Action dismissed with costs throughout.