directly involved in the appeal to the Exchequer Court from the recommendation of the Superintendent of Insurance is not susceptible of evaluation in terms of money. & OF S. M. Clark K.C. and Alastair Macdonald for the appellant.
The Court. L. A. Forsyth K.C. for the respondent.
LILLIAN C. SERSHALL, ADMINISTRA-)
TRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF ALAN
LOUIS
APPELLANT; March 20, SERSHALL (PLAINTIFF)
..............
21,22. *FJune 27. AND
TORONTO TRANSPORTATION COM- RESPONDENT. MISSION
(DEFENDANT)
............
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Negligence-Collision between street car and milk-wagon at street intersection-Responsibility for accident-Findings of jury-Interpretation of findings-Evidence-Negligence and responsibility in law- Proximate cause of accident-Duty of appellate court when asked to reverse decision, on the evidence, ol trial tribunal.
The action was for damages for the death of the driver of a horsedriven milk-wagon through collision at a street intersection in the city of Toronto.
Defendant's street car, proceeding easterly along D. street (a "through" highway), struck the wagon as it was crossing the tracks. At the trial the street car motorman testified that when he saw the horse approaching the D. street line he shut off the power, "fanned his brakes"
(braked car to check speed) and after slackening the car down sounded the gong; that the horse after entering D. street started to turn eastward but was jerked by the reins so that it crossed the tracks; that when he saw the horse was going to cross he applied the emergency brake. The case was tried with a special jury, who found that the motorman was guilty of negligence causing the collision, in that, as stated in their answer to question 2 submitted to them, "the evidence indicates that he was conscious of danger when he fanned his brakes and at that time did not bring his car under such control that it could have been stopped, if necessary, in time to have avoided the * PRESENT:-Duff C.J. and Crocket, Davis, Kerwin and Hudson JJ.