|
Killam a de plus témoigné qu’il avait discuté de la situation avec le chef, Thibeau, alors adjoint du cantonnier en chef, et que Thibeau l’avait à son tour adressé à son chef à Kentville. Thibeau a témoigné que le jour où la demande a été faite, il n’était plus adjoint du cantonnier en chef et ne se trouvait pas dans la région.
|
|
nuisance of himself in complaining to the section man and to almost everyone else as to the danger of the crossing. He also testified to having a bulldozer there for the purpose of widening his own private road and that when such a machine got to the point where it would cross on to the property of the railway he requested Deveau, the section man, to give him permission to do so and that Deveau simply referred him to his superior. Killam further testified that he discussed the situation with the superior, Thibeau, the then assistant roadmaster, and that in turn Thibeau referred him to his superior in Kentville. Thibeau gave evidence that the date when the request was made he was no longer assistant roadmaster and was not in the area. Deveau did not even remember the conversation. It is quite evident that the jury from its verdict believed, as I am of the opinion that they were entitled to believe, the evidence of Killam. At any rate, I regard that as immaterial as certainly there was evidence and uncontradicted evidence that Killam constantly complained of the danger of the crossing in his conversations with Deveau and that Deveau, being the section foreman, was under a duty to inform his superiors as to the danger of the crossing. Indeed, neither Deveau nor Thibeau, who travelled past this crossing once a day, could have failed to have realized the startling danger it presented to anyone attempting to drive along the private road from the highway easterly across the crossing into the Killam property. It is said that the crossing during the sixty or more years in which it existed had not resulted in any accidents but I am of the opinion that that is not an important consideration when determining whether the circumstances should be regarded as exceptional. The crossing was used by few persons and it is probably true that most of the persons realized the very grave danger which it presented. Moreover, the line was infrequently used by trains and during the time when that traffic was by steam trains the approach of such a machine was usually accompanied by a considerable noise. Too often a danger is allowed to exist until the occurrence of a fatality makes it impossible to ignore that danger any longer. I am therefore of the view that the circumstances in effect at this crossing did constitute exceptional
|