Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v Jennings
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1887 |
| Date | 1887 |
| Year | 1887 |
| Court | Privy Council |
The right conferred by Lord Campbell's Act, adopted by Consolidated Statutes of Ontario, c. 135, ss. 2 and 3, to recover damages in respect of death occasioned by wrongful act, neglect or default is restricted to the actual pecuniary loss sustained by the plaintiff.
Where the widow of deceased is plaintiff, and her husband had made provision for her by a policy on his own life in her favour, the amount of such policy is not to be deducted from the amount of damages previously assessed irrespective of such consideration. She is benefited only by the accelerated receipt of the amount of the policy, and that benefit being represented by the interest of the money during the period of acceleration, may be compensated by deducting future premiums from the estimated future earnings of the deceased.
Hicks v. Newport, &c., Railway Company (
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Sept. 6, 1887) affirming a judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court (May 31, 1886) which discharged an order nisi obtained by the appellant company calling on the respondent to shew cause why the verdict and judgment in an action tried on the 5th and 6th of April, 1886, should not be set aside and judgment entered for the appellants or a new trial had between the parties on the ground of misdirection and on other grounds. The action was founded on Revised Statutes, 1877, c. 128, ss. 2 and 3, which is the same as c. 135 of the later revision.
The facts of the case and the proceedings are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
McCarthy, Q.C. (Canada), and Jeune, Q.C., for the appellants, contended that the jury ought under the circumstances to have been directed to deduct the insurance money on the life of the deceased from the amount of damages awarded by them to the respondent. At least they ought to have been directed that in awarding such damages they ought to take into consideration the receipt of the said insurance money by the respondent. Reference was made to Beckett v. Grand Trunk Railway CompanyF1; Blake v. Midland Railway CompanyF2; Mayne on Damages (3rd ed.)F3; Pym v. Great Northern Railway CompanyF4, and the case of Hicks v. Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway Company in a note to the last report, p. 403, vol. 4, which includes a charge to the jury by Lord Campbell; Rowley v. London and North Western Railway CompanyF5; Bradburn v. Great Western Railway CompanyF6; Mary Seward v. The Owner of the Vera CruzF7, and to Sykes v. North Eastern Railway CompanyF8, which is referred to in Beckett's Case.
The respondent did not appear.
[1888 Aug. 4.] The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD WATSON: —
This appeal is taken in an action brought by the respondent in the Court of Queen's Bench, Ontario, for damages in respect of the death of her husband, the late William Jennings; her right to recover being founded upon c. 135 of the Consolidated Statutes...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Peacock v Amusement Equip. Company Ltd
-
Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries (No. 2)
...but as Lord Watson observed, in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee in the case of ( Grand Trunk Railway v. Jennings 13 A.C. 800)—"In some circumstances that principle admits of easy application, but in others the extent of loss depends upon data which cannot be ascertained wi......
- Public Trustee v Zoanetti
-
Ana Belen Cacheda Chouza (Personal Representative of Mr Albino Otero Rodriguez, Deceased) v Artur Mendonca Lopes Martins
... ... (2) Transport Eduardo Cardoso LDA (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Portugal) ... Railway Company [1863] 4 B&S 396 ). This quotation was ... of the damages must be considered: Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Jennings , 13 ... ...