Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Smith

On an Autumn evening, near the close of the 19th century, disaster struck when Ms Smith, an elderly passenger, was violently hurled from her upper berth in a sleeper carriage as her train careened around a sharp bend. The incident sparked a legal battle over whether the railway company was liable for the injuries she sustained from being unexpectedly thrown from her bed.

An Elderly Maiden Lady and her ‘Laudable’ Mission

In October 1897, Ms Jessie E Smith travelled on the Intercolonial Railway of Canada from Saint John, New Brunswick, to Montreal, Québec, accompanied by four other women. From there, the women continued their travels on an overnight train of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, bound for Toronto.

Ms Smith supported herself by running a small shop in the town of Truro, Nova Scotia. She also served as superintendent of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), Department of Social Hygiene in Nova Scotia. It was this position that prompted her journey from her quiet hometown to the bustling city of Toronto.

The WCTU, an international organisation dedicated to temperance, had expanded its focus to broader social reforms, including ‘social purity’¹—a movement aimed at reshaping sexuality and improving morality in Canada.² In their zeal to ‘elevate the moral tone of Canadian society’,³ some WCTU members unfortunately promoted troubling racial and imperialist ideologies.⁴ Though the precise nature of the mission undertaken by Ms Smith and her four companions remains unclear, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada later remarked that they were ‘journeying upon a most laudable mission’.⁵

Having missed their connection in Montreal due to the delayed arrival of their first train from Saint John, Ms Smith and her companions were forced to spend an extra day in the city before continuing their journey west to Toronto. Their original tickets had entitled them to lower berths on the Montreal to Toronto train, but on their rescheduled tickets, they were assigned upper berths. This was an unfamiliar and uncomfortable experience for Ms Smith who was not accustomed to the use of sleeping carriages and had never slept in an upper berth.

Unfortunately, the train’s motion was allegedly erratic. The carriage rocked and swayed so fiercely that it left Ms Smith and her companions in a state of alarm. As the train rattled along, the jerking grew so intense that the women hesitated to climb into their berths. When Ms Smith eventually settled into her upper berth, she decided to reposition herself so that she faced the direction she was most accustomed to, hoping to minimise the risk of falling. As she shifted her body, moving her head to the opposite end of the berth, the train—somewhere in Ontario—suddenly careened around a sharp curve. In an instant, she was violently thrown from her upper berth. In a desperate attempt to catch herself, she reached for a curtain, but her grasp failed, and she crashed to the floor in the middle of the sleeping carriage, stunned and disoriented.

Her injuries were severe, requiring hospitalisation in Toronto and leaving her unable to return to her shop in Truro.

Ms Smith alleged that the cause of her fall was the negligent construction and maintenance of both the railway and the carriages, as well as the careless driving of the train. Her claims regarding the violent movements of the carriage were supported by one of her travel companions, Miss Margaret McGregor. Miss McGregor was a seasoned traveller who had extensive experience travelling on trains across Canada, the United States, and England. Comparing the motion of the train with others on which she had travelled, Miss McGregor described the Canadian train as “rough, very rough; much rougher than in other places.”

At first instance, the trial judge withdrew the case from the jury and directed that judgment be entered for the defendant railway company. According to the trial judge, there was no evidence of negligence, and Ms Smith’s injuries were the result of her own actions.

Ms Smith appealed, contending that if the case had gone to the jury, the excessive jolting and swaying could have been regarded as evidence of the railway’s failure to exercise reasonable care in operating the train. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company denied negligence and argued that the train’s rough motion was precisely why Ms Smith should have been more cautious in her actions.

A Novel Case: The Nova Scotia Court Decides

In its February 1901 judgment, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia allowed Ms Smith’s appeal and ordered a new trial.⁶

Graham EJ (Ritchie J agreeing), held that the accident was not so clearly attributable to Ms Smith’s negligence in repositioning herself in her berth that the case should have been removed from the jury’s consideration.⁷ It was further held that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury might reasonably infer negligence on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company:

‘a train should not be managed in such a way, whether by excessive speed in going around curves, or otherwise, that a passenger should be thrown from a berth by the swaying and lurching. That is not at all an ordinary incident in railway travelling.’⁸

Meagher J similarly found that the accident was unusual and unlikely to have occurred if reasonable care had been exercised by the defendant.⁹ In the absence of any explanation suggesting an external cause beyond the defendant’s control, the jury could reasonably infer that the accident was due to the railway’s negligence.

The most detailed judgment was delivered by Weatherbe J, who agreed that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Ms Smith’s injuries were attributable to a want of due care by the defendant in operating their railway and train. This negligence might have been due to the driver’s failure to properly manage speed on curves, the roughness of the railway, or even defects in the carriage’s design, such as inadequate straps or other safety features. It was suggested that even directions from train staff to passengers may have prevented the accident.¹⁰

Weatherbe J observed that the specific manner in which the injury occurred—falling from an upper berth—was novel among the reported cases.¹¹ This was attributed to the fact that in Britain, the railways are so comparatively short that sleeping berths are used less than in Canada.¹² Interestingly, Weatherbe J also noted that Canada’s relatively sparse population and limited resources meant that certain tasks necessarily had to be done ‘cheaply and some what roughly’.¹³ He observed that the high standard of care expected of the British railways, with their more skilled workforce and advanced infrastructure,¹⁴ could not be applied as rigidly in Canada without risking the collapse of the railway system. Nevertheless, he concluded that, even in Canada, ‘such a degree of care should be used in the management of the road and trains as will properly protect the persons and lives of passengers.’¹⁵

Weatherbe J then provided a detailed review of the English authorities dealing with injury to travellers arising from alleged negligence on railways, including Gee v The Met Railway Company (1873).¹⁶ In that case, a passenger fell from a carriage after accidentally opening an insecurely fastened door. He had arisen from his seat and was pushing up against the window of the door in order to show his brother the light of the next station. The jury found for the plaintiff, even though there was no necessity in his act.¹⁷ When the case reached the Queen’s Bench, Blackburn J observed that: ‘[l]ooking out of the window, though not a necessary act on the part of the passenger, was not an improper act.’¹⁸

The link here to Ms Smith’s case is readily apparent: there was, once again, no necessity in her act of repositioning herself on her upper berth; however, this did not mean that the railway company should escape responsibility for her injuries.

Weatherbe J further suggested, without reaching a definite conclusion, that it was ‘not unreasonable’ to suppose that a jury might find that Ms Smith was not contributorily negligent, because her act was not as hazardous as other acts that would have been a necessity:

‘A jury might, and possibly would, say that the necessary act of climbing up to the berth, or the act of undressing, when the passenger would for a time be deprived of the free use of hands and feet, were, either of them, more hazardous than reversing the position of the head in the berth. And if this happened to be the view of a reasonable jury, an inevitable inference would follow, namely, that the passenger might suppose that the less dangerous act of reversing her position was a legitimate one.’¹⁹

Finally, Weatherbe J found that the trial judge had improperly rejected key evidence provided by the train’s conductor.²⁰ The conductor had testified that the speed at which a train is driven affects the swaying when navigating a curve. However, his testimony was excluded on the ground he had never driven an engine. Weatherbe J disagreed, noting that the conductor’s 13 years of experience with the motion of trains made his evidence highly relevant.

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company appealed the judgment of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada Shifts the Blame

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed the Nova Scotia decision, finding in favour of the railway company.

The Supreme Court’s May 1901 decision was delivered by the Chief Justice, Sir Henry Strong CJ, who held that there was no proof of any negligence on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.²¹ It was observed that:

‘At the time of the accident, it appears to have been probable that the train might have been going round a curve. It is in the very nature of things that all railways must have some curves, and (without evidence to the contrary) we must presume that the curve in this case was necessary and proper for the construction of the road and also that it had been properly constructed.’²²

Additionally, there was no evidence of excessive or irregular speed, and the berth itself was constructed in the usual manner.²³ The Chief Justice noted that Ms Smith ‘appears to have been in an extraordinary posture at the time the accident occurred, trying to change her position in the berth’.²⁴ His Honour also remarked that there was an electric button in the berth to summon the porter if any assistance was required, however, Ms Smith had failed to use the button.²⁵ Ultimately, the Court concluded that ‘the accident must be attributed to her own act and inexperience.’²⁶

Regarding the change in the women’s berth assignments, from lower to upper berths (which followed their Intercolonial Railway train missing its connection in Montreal), the Chief Justice found that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was not at fault for this adjustment.²⁷

Conclusion

Ms Jessie Smith was an elderly maiden on a laudable mission until a violent jolt threw her from her berth. Her severe injuries left her unable to run her small shop; yet, despite the shocking nature of her ordeal, she found no legal remedy.

In the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Weatherbe J was moved by Ms Smith’s plight, remarking on the ‘extraordinary manner’ in which the sleeping carriage was managed by the railway company.²⁸ However, by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the tone had shifted. The Chief Justice instead referred to the ‘extraordinary posture’ of Ms Smith, subtly shifting responsibility for the accident onto her.²⁹

The case serves as a stark reminder that, without clear evidence of negligence, even the most harrowing accidents can result in a finding of no liability.