Lockhart v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.

Lockhart v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.

On the facts there was sufficient evidence that Stinson was acting in the course of his employment when he negligently drove his private uninsured car to carry the key to North Toronto; disobedience of the company’s instruction regarding use of uninsured cars did not sever the employment relationship or remove the act from the scope of employment, therefore the employer (Canadian Pacific Railway Company) is vicariously liable.

Citation
[1941] SCR 278
Parties
Plaintiff (infant): Leonard Lockhart; Plaintiff/next Friend: Joseph Lockhart; Defendant (employee): R. Stinson; Defendant/respondent: Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 1941
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence/vicarious Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (judgment Below Dismissed Claim Against Employer)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for infant plaintiff against Canadian Pacific Railway Company for $10,000 (dated July 12, 1939); costs awarded to appellants throughout
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Course of Employment, Respondeat Superior, Negligence, Pleading Amendment, Garnishment/attachment, Appeal Rights
Source Language
English
Labour Law Tort Agency Motor Vehicle Law Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Course of Employment Respondeat Superior +4 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Lockhart

Plaintiff (infant)

Joseph Lockhart

Plaintiff/next Friend

R. Stinson

Defendant (employee)

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence/vicarious Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (judgment Below Dismissed Claim Against Employer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether servant driving his uninsured private automobile to perform a work task was acting in the course of his employment
  2. 2 Whether employer is liable when servant disobeys explicit instructions forbidding use of uninsured private automobiles
  3. 3 Whether judgment entered and garnishee/attachment proceedings against the servant extinguished plaintiff’s cause of action against the employer

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts there was sufficient evidence that Stinson was acting in the course of his employment when he negligently drove his private uninsured car to carry the key to North Toronto; disobedience of the company’s instruction regarding use of uninsured cars did not sever the employment relationship or remove the act from the scope of employment, therefore the employer (Canadian Pacific Railway Company) is vicariously liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for infant plaintiff against Canadian Pacific Railway Company for $10,000 (dated July 12, 1939); costs awarded to appellants throughout

Orders

  • Judgment for infant plaintiff against Canadian Pacific Railway Company for $10,000, dated July 12, 1939
  • Costs to appellants throughout (including Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada costs)