cross appealed on its claim for damages for conspiracy. In this it has been unsuccessful throughout. On another branch of the cross-appeal the Vulcan Company asks for a declaration that Canadian Western held the whole Vulcan Co. extension as trustee for it. This claim, of course, fails in view of what I have written. The cross-appeal should be dismissed with costs.
et al. DONALD LE ROY STANTON (Plain_ tiff) ..... .........................
Apr.29 AND
TAYLOR,
PEARSON
&
CARSON'
(B.C.)
LIMITED
AND
FRANK
RESPONDENTS.
MILNE
(Defendants) ............
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Negligence-Injury to trespasser-Pickets placing wooden beam in front of truck-Driver attempting to ride over beam-Injury to picket- Whether liability.
The plaintiff, with a group of striking union members, was picketing the premises of the corporate defendant. These pickets placed a wooden beam across a lane leading from the premises of the corporation in order to prevent a truck from being driven away by the defendant M, an employee of the corporate defendant. When M attempted to run over the obstruction he found that the beam dragged for a short distance and then shot out in front of the truck. On the third such attempt the plaintiff was struck and injured by the flying beam. The trial judge held that the defendant M had acted in a reckless manner, but that the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable precautions for his own safety. Liability was divided equally. On appeal, the action was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to this Court.
Cartwright, Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Hall JJ.
S.C.R.
J. J. Robinette, Q.C., and Duncan W. Shaw, for the plaintiff, appellant.
J. P. Van der Hoop, for the defendants, respondents. al.
At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellant, the Court delivered the following oral judgment: COURT:-We do not need to call upon you Mr. Van der Hoop. We are all of opinion that the appeal fails and that the action was rightly dismissed for the reasons given by Davey J.A. with which we are in full agreement.
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the plaintiff, appellant: Davis, Hossie, Campbell, Brazier & McLorg, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the defendants., respondents: Harper, Gilmour, Grey & Co., Vancouver.
LO DUPR
(Demandeur) ..............
LES COMMISSAIRES D' COLE
POUR LA MUNICIPALITA DE
ST-BERNARD
DE
LACOLLE
(Dgfenderesse)..............
faute dans une proportion de 75 pour-cent. La Cour d'appel a renvers6 la conclusion du jury et a rejet6 l'action. Le demandeur en appela devant cette Cour.
Arrit: L'appel doit 8tre maintenu et le verdict du jury r~tabli. Une Cour d'appel n'a pas droit de substituer son opinion sur les faits pour celle du jury. Son devoir est d'accepter le verdict en autant qu'il y a une preuve pour le supporter, m~me si la Cour est fortement en disaccord avec la conclusion du jury. Dans le cas pr~sent, il y avait amplement de preuve sur laquelle le jury pouvait se baser pour conclure comme il l'a fait.
Negligence-Teacher-Child left outside school house on a cold day- Jury trial-Duty of Appellate Court-Finding of jury supported by evidence.
A teacher, in the defendant's employ, left the plaintiff's six year-old daughter, dressed in outdoor clothing, for a period of about one and a half hour in a lean-to adjoining the school door on a day when the temperature was a few degrees above zero. The jury found that the child had been the victim of an accident which was due to the common fault of the teacher and the parents. The teacher was held to be 75 per cent at fault. The Court of Appeal reversed the jury's finding and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed to this Court. Held: The appeal should be allowed and the jury's verdict restored. An Appellate Court is not entitled to substitute its opinion on the facts for that of the jury. Its duty is to accept the verdict if there was evidence to support it, however it may disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the jury. In this case there was ample evidence on which the jury could base its finding of negligence.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, province of Quebec', reversing a jury's finding. Appeal allowed.
APPEL d'un jugement de la Cour du banc de la reine, province de Qu6bec', renversant le verdict d'un jury. Appel maintenu.
Jacques Cartier, pour le demandeur, appelant.
Jean Duchesne, c.r., et Ovide Loiselle, pour la d~fenderesse, intim6e.
Le jugement de la Cour fut rendu par
LE JUGE EN CHEF:-En novembre 1963, I'honorable Juge Rend Duranleau, si6geant h la Cour superieure, 1 [19661 B.R. 458.
S.C.R.
[19661 district de Montr6al, a confirm6 le verdict d'un jury condamnant les Commissaires d'icole de la municipalit4 de St-Bernard de Lacolle A payer au demandeur-appelant la somme de $12,000, en sa qualit6 de tuteur h sa fille mineure, Jocelyne, et $840 - lui personnellement.
Les faits qui entourent les circonstances de cette r~clamation ont 6t6 r6cit&s au long dans les jugements des honora- bles juges de la Cour d'appel et il serait inutile de les J. c.
analyser de nouveau. La -Cour a maintenu 1'appel de la Commission scolaire et a rejet6 1'action, M. le Juge en chef Tremblay et M. le Juge Brossard 6tant dissidents. Il suffira pour 1'intelligence du jugement de cette Cour de rappeler qu'une institutrice h l'emploi des d6fendeurs, et alors dans l'exercice de ses fonctions, laissa dans un <tambour>>, h l'ext6rieur de 1'6cole, durant environ une heure et demie, 1'enfant du demandeur, en bas Age, alors que la temp6rature 6tait de trente degrds en-dessous du point de cong6lation.
Cette enfant, comme consequence de cette exposition au froid, alors que la porte int6rieure de 1'6cole avait 6t6 verrouill6e pour lui interdire tout acchs A l'int6rieur, fut affect6e de s6rieux troubles physiques et mentaux qui ont, d'apris la preuve, un caractbre de permanence.
C'est la conclusion h laquelle en sont arriv6s les membres du jury quand ils ont affirmativement d~clar6 que l'institutrice 6tait dans l'exercice de ses fonctions et que les maux qui affligent maintenant la jeune fille ont 6t caus6s par la n6gligence volontaire et la faute de 1'institutrice. Le montant des dommages accord~s n'est pas contest6.
Je suis d'opinion qu'il ne s'agit pas ici d'un cas oii le verdict d'un jury doit 6tre mis de c6t6. Itvidemment, i] existe des cas les Cours d'appel peuvent et doivent intervenir, si, par exemple, le verdict est contraire h la loi ou au poids de la preuve (C.P. 498). Comme 1'a dit cette Cour ddja' et c'est la jurisprudence unanime, Laporte v. C.P.R.x .
.....