Toronto Railway Co. v. Bond
Court headnote
Toronto Railway Co. v. Bond Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1895-05-15 Report (1895) 24 SCR 715 Judges Henry, William Alexander; Strong, Samuel Henry; Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Gwynne, John Wellington; Sedgewick, Robert; King, George Edwin On appeal from Ontario Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Toronto Railway Co. v. Bond, (1895) 24 S.C.R. 715 Date: 1895-05-15 Toronto Railway Co. and Bond 1895: May 14; 1895: May 15. Present: Sir Henry Strong C.J., and Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick and King JJ. Negligence—Street railway—Defective plant. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, affirming the judgment of the Divisional Court in favour of the plaintiff Bond. The plaintiff was a motorman in the employ of the defendant company and his action was brought under the Workman’s Compensation Act to recover damages for injuries sustained while coupling together a street car and a trailer. The main ground of negligence charged was the absence of buffers to protect the official from injury in coupling. The plaintiff had a verdict at the trial which was affirmed by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that negligence on the part of the company in not having proper appliances to prevent injury was clearly proved and a new trial properly refused. Appeal dismissed with costs. Bicknell for the appellants. McGregor for the respondent. …
Read full judgment
Toronto Railway Co. v. Bond Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1895-05-15 Report (1895) 24 SCR 715 Judges Henry, William Alexander; Strong, Samuel Henry; Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Gwynne, John Wellington; Sedgewick, Robert; King, George Edwin On appeal from Ontario Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Toronto Railway Co. v. Bond, (1895) 24 S.C.R. 715 Date: 1895-05-15 Toronto Railway Co. and Bond 1895: May 14; 1895: May 15. Present: Sir Henry Strong C.J., and Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick and King JJ. Negligence—Street railway—Defective plant. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, affirming the judgment of the Divisional Court in favour of the plaintiff Bond. The plaintiff was a motorman in the employ of the defendant company and his action was brought under the Workman’s Compensation Act to recover damages for injuries sustained while coupling together a street car and a trailer. The main ground of negligence charged was the absence of buffers to protect the official from injury in coupling. The plaintiff had a verdict at the trial which was affirmed by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that negligence on the part of the company in not having proper appliances to prevent injury was clearly proved and a new trial properly refused. Appeal dismissed with costs. Bicknell for the appellants. McGregor for the respondent.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca