Central Vermont Railway Company v Bain Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v Bain
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1921 |
| Date | 1921 |
| Year | 1921 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Negligence - Master and Servant - Railway Companies - Jointly operated Line - Liability of Companies - Control of Servant - Disregard of Signals.
The appellant's husband was killed owing to the negligence of the respondent company's engine driver in disregarding the signals of another company upon whose line he was driving the engine under an agreement between the companies for joint working; each company paid the drivers employed in the joint service for the service on its own line. The appellant sued the respondents for damages:—
Held, that the respondent company was not liable, since at the moment of the accident the engine driver was under the control of the other company.
APPEAL by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court (April 9, 1919) reversing a judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side) of the Province of Quebec (June 21, 1918) which affirmed the judgment of Mercier J. at the trial.
The action was brought by the appellant against the respondent company under the circumstances stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported at
1921. July 5. Rinfret K.C. and Ogden K.C. for the appellant. The respondent company was liable for the negligence of its engine driver. The agreement did not have the effect of removing the engine from the control of the driver; there was a measure of control over the engine driver in the respondent company. The running of the engine was for the joint benefit of the two companies.
The respondents were liable either exclusively or jointly. [Reference was made to Gill v. Manchester Ry. Co.F1, Moore v. PalmerF2, Dewar v. Tasker & SonsF3 and s. 238 of Railway Act of Canada (51 Vict. c. 29).]
Newcombe K.C. and G. Lawrence for the respondents were not called upon.
1921. July 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD DUNEDIN. Hedges, a locomotive fireman in the employment of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, was killed in the course of his duties at Montreal on February 2, 1915, by being run into by another engine driven by an engineer called Frost. It is admitted that Frost was guilty of negligence. Frost was in the service of the Central Vermont Railway Company. The widow of Hedges, for herself and an infant daughter, received compensation from the Grand Trunk Railway Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of her husband. This disentitled her to raise any action against the Grand Trunk, but in terms of art. 7334...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v McAlpine (Cayman) Ltd
...v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd., [1981] A.C. 1001; [1981] All E.R. 353; [1981] J.P.L. 353, followed. (2) Bain v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., [1921] 2 A.C. 412, applied. (3) Tilling v. Whiteman, [1980] A.C. 1; [1979] 1 All E.R. 737; [1979] J.P.L. 834, applied. Legislation cited: Grand Court Rules, O.......
-
Bull & Company v West African Shipping Agency and Lighterage Company
...1 Q. B. 629 Rourke v. Whitemoss Colliery Company Limited 36 L. R. Rep. 49 2 C. P. Div. 205 Bain v. Central Vermont Railway CompanyELR 1921 2 A.c. 412 West Africa — Negligence — Hire of lighter with lightermen Donavan v. The Lading, Wharton, and Down Constrution Syndicate Limited (68 L. T. R......
- East Coast Berbice Village District Council v Shambool Hussain
-
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd
...Bowen LJ's formulation and application of the test in Donovan v Laing was approved and applied in the Privy Council in Bain v Central Vermont Railway Company [1921] 2 AC 412 and Bull v West African Shipping Agency [1927] AC 686, it was subjected to critical consideration in the Mersey Doc......