Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. Bain / Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Bain

Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. Bain / Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Bain

At the time of the collision the engineer was under the exclusive control and employment of the Grand Trunk Railway Company while operating on the Grand Trunk line; the inter-company agreement and the facts showed each company retained control and liability on its own line, so Central Vermont could not be held liable for negligence occurring on Grand Trunk property; therefore the appeals were allowed and the action against Central Vermont dismissed.

Citation
(1919) 58 SCR 433
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Central Vermont Railway Company; Appellant / Defendant in Warranty: Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada; Respondent / Plaintiff: Dame Margaret Bain
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 April 1919
Procedural Posture
Torts Wrongful Death / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgment of Court of King's Bench reversed; action against Central Vermont Railway Company dismissed and action in warranty against Grand Trunk Railway Company falls.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Control (patron Momentané), Joint Operation of Railways, Workmen's Compensation, Res Inter Alios Acta
Source Language
English
Torts Master and Servant Railway Law Contract Interpretation Vicarious Liability Control (patron Momentané) Joint Operation of Railways Workmen's Compensation +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Vermont Railway Company

Appellant / Defendant

Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada

Appellant / Defendant in Warranty

Dame Margaret Bain

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Torts Wrongful Death / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the engineer was the servant/employed and under the control of Central Vermont Railway Co. or of Grand Trunk Railway Co. at the time of the fatal collision
  2. 2 Whether the joint-operation agreement created joint liability or only a continuous through service with separate control and liability on each company's line
  3. 3 Whether the inter-company agreement is res inter alios acta as to third parties (the injured party) and affects employer liability

Ratio Decidendi

At the time of the collision the engineer was under the exclusive control and employment of the Grand Trunk Railway Company while operating on the Grand Trunk line; the inter-company agreement and the facts showed each company retained control and liability on its own line, so Central Vermont could not be held liable for negligence occurring on Grand Trunk property; therefore the appeals were allowed and the action against Central Vermont dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgment of Court of King's Bench reversed; action against Central Vermont Railway Company dismissed and action in warranty against Grand Trunk Railway Company falls.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed