Majority
The question, then, for the jury was whether the motorman had used in a high degree all due, proper and reason- T able care and skill under the circumstances.
On conflicting evidence the jury chose to accept that part which was favourable to the plaintiff.
I am of opinion that there was some evidence on which they could properly decide that the motorman had failed in his duty. I would, therefore, allow the appeal and restore the judgment at the trial, with costs here and below.
Judgment of the Court
J. (oral):
We do not require to hear you in reply, Mr. Belcourt.
We think the motion ought to be granted and the appeal quashed.
There is really no possible distinction between this case and the case of L'Autorit6 Limitge v. Ibbotson (1), where, curiously enough, the respondents were the same number as in the present case.
Under s. 22 of the Fair Wages Act the claims of several employees against the same employer may be cumulated in a single action.
But the statute is only permissive, S.C.R.]
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 22 of the Fair Wages Act