What is the test for determining whether a city has been found guilty of negligence in relation to loss of glass?

A number of other acts of negligence are set up in the pleadings, and as the jury made no express findings on such other alleged acts of negligence, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the city should not have judgment, but that there should be a new trial. It would appear from a perusal of the authorities that in deciding this question, each case must be dealt with in the light of its own peculiar circumstances, it being difficult to lay down any general principle. In the case of Cobban v. C.P.R., 23 A.R. (Ont.) 115, the questions submitted to the jury, with answers, were as follows:— 1. Were the defendants guilty of negligence which led to the loss of the glass in question? A. Yes. 2. If the defendants were guilty of negligence, in what did such negligence consist? A. In running too fast speed for the freight train; the improper inspection at last place of inspection.