Municipality of Pictou v Geldert
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1893 |
| Date | 1893 |
| Year | 1893 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Law of Nova Scotia -
Public corporations to which an obligation to keep public roads and bridges in repair has been transferred are not liable to an action in respect of mere non-feasance, unless the legislature has shewn an intention to impose such liability upon them.
In an action for damages for injuries caused by the neglect of the appellant municipality to repair a bridge, held, that by the
Sanitary Commissioners of Gibraltar v. Orfila (
The Bathurst Case (
APPEAL from a decree of the Supreme Court, affirming by a majority a decree of Meagher, J., in favour of the respondent.
The question in the appeal was, whether the
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Finlay, Q.C., Borden, Q.C. (Nova Scotia), and Gore, for the appellant, contended that by the common law of England, which prevailed in Nova Scotia, no action by a person injured by non-repair of roads or bridges within the county could be maintained. The Act of 1879 did not confer such right of action, nor did it create any new liability on the part of the appellant in respect of non-repair of highways within the district. The Act of 1879 with certain amendments forms c. 56 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia (5th series, 1885). If sect. 82 of that Act imposed a duty on the appellant to repair, it did not impose it as a duty to the respondent, nor did it give to the respondent a personal remedy in case of damages resulting to him from non-repair. The distinction relied upon was that between non-feasance and misfeasance. In Borough of Bathurst v. MacphersonF1 there was a clear case of misfeasance, and the judgment when examined appears to have been exclusively rested on that ground. There is no liability of the appellant for non-feasance unless the Act clearly intended to impose it. Reference was made to Cowley v. Newmarket BoardF2; Hartnell v. Ryde CommissionersF3. [LORD HALSBURY:— While writing on Cowley's CaseF2 I entertained a strong doubt whether Hartnell v. Ryde CommissionersF3 could be maintained. THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— The dictum in Couch v. SteelF4 has been strongly disapproved by Lord Cairns.] See also Sanitary Commissioners of Gibraltar v. OrfilaF5. The effect of these decisions is to overrule the law as laid down in the Nova Scotia decisions, viz., in Walker v. City of HalifaxF6; M'Quaine v. Municipality of St. Mary'sF7; Watson v. Municipality of HalifaxF8. The judgments in these Nova Scotia cases practically proceed upon an erroneous view of the decision in the Bathurst CaseF1.
The respondent did not appear.
[1893 Aug. 3.] The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD HOBHOUSE:—
The plaintiff in this case resides within the municipality of Pictou, and he sues the corporation for neglect of its duty to repair a bridge, whereby severe injuries were caused to the plaintiff. His allegations are that the defendants were in possession and had the management and control of the public highway over the bridge in question, and were liable and bound to maintain, repair, and keep in repair the said highway and bridge, and the approaches thereto, and that the defendants negligently, improperly, and wrongfully suffered the said highway, bridge and approaches to become out of repair and dangerous to persons passing. The judge who tried the cause, and on appeal the majority of the Supreme Court, have found in favour of the plaintiff.
It is not denied that the approach to the bridge was out of repair, or that severe injury was caused to the plaintiff thereby. The defendants relied on several grounds of defence, some of which have not been raised again before their Lordships. Two have been argued at length, one that the highway in question is one of the great roads of the province, and the other, that before the plaintiff was injured it had come under the provisions of the Bridge Act; and in either case it is contended that the place was removed from the control and cognizance of the municipality. Their Lordships desire to pronounce no opinion on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Maycock v Attorney General and Another; and related appeals
-
Bowden v. Withrow's Pharmacy Halifax (1999) Ltd. et al., 2008 NSSC 252
...Maple Ridge (District) (1994), 52 B.C.A.C. 79; 86 W.A.C. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 3]. Pictou (Municipality) v. Geldert, [1893] A.C. 524 (P.C.), refd to. [para. Coleman v. Halifax (City), [1915] N.S.J. No. 10 (S.C. en banc), refd to. [para. 72]. Pelham v. Halifax (City) (1972)......
-
Ruth Margaret Macdonald V. Aberdeenshire Council
...existed. The Lord President (at 919) quoted a statement in a Canadian case before the Privy Council, Municipality of Pictou v Geldert, [1893] AC 524, to the effect that a roads authority, although liable in a public law remedy for breach of its duty to keep a road or bridge in repair, was n......
-
Baxter v Stockton-on-Tees Corporation
...responsible. At page 573 Lord Justice Finlay said this: "We may refer, as Mr. Justice Humphreys in the Court below referred, to Municipality of Pictou v. Geldert where the law is thus summarised by Lord Hobhouse delivering the opinion of the Board: 'The latest English case is that of Cowley......