Haynes v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and Boland, (1974) 17 N.R. 125 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 26, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 17 N.R. 125 (SCC)

Haynes v. CPR (1974), 17 N.R. 125 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Haynes v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Boland

Indexed As: Haynes v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and Boland

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

November 26, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for damages arising out of a collision between the plaintiff's motor vehicle and the defendant railway's train. The plaintiff drove on a gravel road off the main highway onto the right of way of the defendant railway. The defendant's right of way was fenced on both sides. One fence had a closed gate, which the plaintiff opened, and the other fence had an open gate. The plaintiff's vehicle was struck by a train and the plaintiff was severely injured. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant railway and the alleged driver of his own vehicle. In a trial in the British Columbia Supreme Court before a judge and jury the jury found that the railway breached its duty to the plaintiff as a trespasser by acting in reckless disregard for his safety in breach of the defendant's duty to trespassers. The trial judge refused to disturb the verdict, although he was of the opinion that the neglect found by the jury could not in law amount to reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety in breach of the defendant's duty to trespassers. The railway appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported at paragraphs 3 to 56 below and in [1972] 6 W.W.R. 296 allowed the appeal and held that the defendant did not in law breach its duty to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. See paragraphs 1 to 2.

Practice - Topic 5182

Juries and jury trials - Verdicts - Setting aside jury verdict by trial judge - The plaintiff drove on a gravel road off the main highway onto the right of way of defendant railway - The defendant's right of way was fenced on both sides - One fence had a closed gate, which the plaintiff opened, and the other fence had an open gate - The plaintiff's vehicle was struck by a train - The jury found that the railway breached its duty to the plaintiff as a trespasser by acting in reckless disregard for his safety in failing to provide adequate supervision and delegation of responsibility in securing and locking gates and in the lack of warning signs on gates to indicate restricted entry - The trial judge refused to disturb the verdict, although he was of the opinion that the neglect of the defendant found by the jury could not in law amount to reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety in breach of the defendant's duty to trespassers - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge would have been within his powers to set aside the jury verdict and direct judgment for the defendant, because the defendant did not in law breach its duty to the plaintiff - See paragraphs 24 to 50.

Practice - Topic 5389

Dismissal of action - Application for dismissal - Motion for non-suit at close of plaintiff's case - Procedure upon motion being made - The British Columbia Court of Appeal set out the procedure to be followed by the trial judge, when the defendant moves for the dismissal of the plaintiff's action at the close of the plaintiff's case - See paragraph 23.

Torts - Topic 3851

Occupier's liability for dangerous premises - Trespassers - Duty of occupier to trespassers - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that an occupier of land owes a duty not to injure a trespasser willfully and not to do any willful act in reckless disregard of ordinary humanity toward the trespasser - See paragraphs 12 and 13.

Torts - Topic 3852

Occupier's liability for dangerous premises - Trespassers - What constitutes a trespasser - The plaintiff drove on a gravel road off the main highway onto the right of way of the defendant railway - The defendant's right of way was fenced on both sides - One fence had a closed gate, which the plaintiff opened, and the other fence had an open gate - The plaintiff's vehicle was struck by a train - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to disturb the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was a trespasser -See paragraphs 1, 3, 8 to 9, 54.

Torts - Topic 3856

Occupier's liability for dangerous premises - Trespasser's - What constitutes reckless disregard for trespasser's safety - The plaintiff drove on a gravel road off the main highway onto the right of way of the defendant railway - The defendant's right of way was fenced on both sides - One fence had a closed gate, which the plaintiff opened, and the other fence had an open gate - The plaintiff's vehicle was struck by a train - The jury found that the railway breached its duty to the plaintiff as a trespasser by acting in reckless disregard for his safety in failing to provide supervision and delegation of responsibility in securing and locking gates and in the lack of warning signs on gates to indicate restricted entry - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the neglect by the defendant found by the jury could not in law amount to reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety and did not constitute a breach of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff - See paragraph 3 and 16.

Cases Noticed:

Commissioner for Railways v. Quinlan, [1964] A.C. 1054, appld. [para. 1].

Veinot v. Kerr-Addison Mines Ltd., 3 N.R. 94, appld. [para. 1].

Santon v. Taylor, Pearson & Carson (B.C.) Ltd. and Milne, 54 W.W.R.(N.S.) 449; 56 D.L.R.(2d) 240, affd. [1966] S.C.R. 641; 56 W.W.R.(N.S.) 768, appld. [para. 13].

Wakelin v. London & South Western Ry. Co. (1887), 12 App. Cas. 41, refd to. [para. 17].

C.N.R. v. Lancia, [1949] S.C.R. 177; 63 C.R.T.C. 241; [1949] 1 D.L.R. 737, appld. [para. 26].

Edwards et al. v. Railway Executive, [1952] A.C. 737; [1952] 2 All E.R. 430, appld. [para. 32].

Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater, 1 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 8 D.L.R.(3d) 243, affd. [1971] S.C.R. 577; 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474; 17 D.L.R.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 39].

Nickerson v. Forbes (1955), 37 M.P.R. 321; 1 D.L.R.(2d) 463 (N.S.), appld. [para. 42].

Gobbo et al. v. Rockingham Hardware Ltd. et al. (1970), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 26; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 627, refd to. [para. 43].

McCready v. Scott et al. (1968), 62 W.W.R.(N.S.) 563; 66 D.L.R.(2d) 3564, refd to. [para. 43].

Grinsted v. Hadrill et al., [1953] 1 W.L.R. 696; [1953] 1 All E.R. 1188, appld. [para. 44].

Skeate v. Slaters Ltd., [1914] 2 K.B. 429, appld. [para. 46].

Adam v. Campbell, [1950] 3 D.L.R. 449, appld. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (B.C.), Order 36, rule 39 [para. 38]; Order 40, rule 10 [para. 39].

Counsel:

John Sopinka, for the appellant;

Ross W. Paisley and B.W. Hoeschen, for the respondent.

This case was heard on November 25 and 26, 1974, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 26, 1974, LASKIN, C.J.C., orally delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: