Supreme Court of Canada
Car and General Insurance Corporation Limited v. Seymour
and Maloney, [1956] S.C.R. 322
Date: 1956-02-10
Car and General Insurance Corporation
Limited (Third Party)
Appellant;
And
Thelma Isabelle Seymour (Plaintiff)
Respondent.
And
Edwin Lewes Maloney (Defendant)
Respondent.
1955: Nov. 11, 14, 15;
1956: Feb. 10.
Present: Rand, Kellock,
Locke, Cartwright and Abbott JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA, IN
BANCO
Automobiles—Negligence—Gratuitous passenger
injured—Intoxicated driver—Gross negligence—Whether assumption of risk—Whether
contributory negligence.
The respondent (plaintiff) was injured through an accident
while a gratuitous passenger in an automobile driven by the respondent
(defendant) who had invited the plaintiff to ride in the automobile. The
driver, to her knowledge, had started drinking intoxicating liquor at breakfast
and had kept it up until the accident about an hour and a half later. The trial
judge found gross negligence against the driver. This finding was affirmed in
the Court of Appeal and was not questioned in this Court. The defences of volenti
non fit injuria and of contributory negligence were raised. The trial judge
found that the passenger had assumed the risk. The Court of Appeal reversed
this judgment but found contributory negligence.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The defence of volenti non fit injuria had not been
established. However, there had been contributory negligence on the part of the
passenger, and the apportionment of liability, made below, should not be
disturbed.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,
in banco,
in an action by a gratuitous passenger for damages.
A. L. Thurlow, Q.C. and J. W. E. Mingo for the appellant.
N. D. Blanchard and L. A. Bell for the respondent.
RAND J.:—This action arises out of injuries to the young woman
plaintiff through an accident while in an automobile driven by the respondent
Maloney. Two defences are
[Page 323]
raised, assumption of risk,
and contributory negligence. The risk lay in the fact that Maloney, at the time
of and for some time prior to the occurrence, was, in some degree, under the
influence of alcohol, and the question of its assumption in such circumstances
comes before us directly for the first time. It is an important question and
calls for an examination of that conception.
The form in which the
principle has traditionally been stated is that if a person is aware of all the
facts of a danger and voluntarily exposes himself to it, he is held to have
accepted the risk of any resulting injury. It seems to have originated in
matters between master and servant involving hazardous conditions, the simplest
case being that of entering upon work inherently dangerous. The next step was
taken in Priestley v. Fowler,
which extended the risk to the negligence of a fellow servant. In the
developing conceptions of duty, the scope of the assumption was reduced by the
requirement of reasonably safe working conditions including statutory provision
for machinery and other protection. Complications of the principle are
presented by the multiplying risks of modern modes of carrying on business and
of social life, and among them is that of the relation between a driver of an
automobile and a gratuitous passenger. In several provinces the judgment of the
legislature has been expressed in an absolute denial of any claim against the
operator; but in Nova Scotia where gross negligence has, as here, been found,
the question is at large.
The risk in this case arises
out of a special relation which, in turn, results from an undertaking in the
original sense of that word: Maloney accepts from the respondent Seymour a
commitment of herself to a quasi-custody which he assumes for a purpose
involving special hazards under his control or within his general
responsibility on terms which include one relating to care in executing the
purpose. The degree of care on his part engaged or the risk on hers assumed,
qualified or unqualified, may be expressly stipulated, and if so, it would be
as determinative during the course of the undertaking as if consideration had
passed; but in the generality of cases this term including qualifications is to
be implied from the total circumstances.
[Page 324]
The initial question is
whether the undertaker is capable, as if it were in contract, of entering into
such an engagement; if he is, what is to be implied as to continued fitness and
ability to carry it out until the relation is ended or modified? If he is not
originally capable, the passenger acts alone; if self-caused incapacity
develops during the performance, its effect will depend on the original terms.
No other aspects of the relation are brought into discussion; it is not argued,
for instance, that there was a joint venture which would introduce new
elements.
This stress upon the
deduction of terms is made because whether we treat the duty of care as being
an incident imposed by law or as an element of the understanding taken to be
present between the parties, the actual implication of the facts as it would be
inferred by the ordinary reasonable man should, in any event, constitute the
legal imposition. The argument, therefore, proceeding on either basis, should
reach the same result.
In its application to such a
situation, I demur to the usual form of the question by which the principle is
raised: did the injured person assume the risk that has brought about the
injury? The injured person is generally the passenger but it might be the
operator not only of automobiles but of airplanes and other machines. So put,
the question tends to disguise the governing fact that the other party is
setting up in defence the acceptance of the risk as a term of the undertaking,
the burden of proving which lies upon him. In such commitments the question
ought, I think, rather to be, can the defendant reasonably be heard to say, as
an inference from the facts, that the risk of injury from his own misconduct
was required by him to be and was accepted by the complainant, as such a term?
At common law an undertaking of this species, regardless of consideration, was
pleaded in the sub-form of case called assumpsit (he undertook), originally in
tort but possibly developing into an independent category: Maitland, Forms of
action at Common Law .p. 68-9; its essence was the commitment of an
interest of one person to a course of action by another; and its terms were to
be gathered as an interpretation of the total circumstances on the footing of
which the commitment was made and accepted.
[Page 325]
That the risk should be so
dealt with follows from what was said by Lord Watson in Smith v. Baker. That was a case of
master and servant in which a workman, engaged in an employment which was not
in itself dangerous, was exposed to danger arising from an operation in another
department over which he had no control. At p. 355 Lord Watson, in his speech,
says:
The maxim, "Volenti non fit injuria," originally
borrowed from the civil law, has lost much of its literal significance. A free
citizen of Rome who, in concert with another, permitted himself to be sold as a
slave, in order that he might share in the price, suffered a serious injury;
but he was in the strictest sense of the term volens. The same can hardly be
said of a slater who is injured by a fall from the roof of a house; although he
too may be volens in the sense of English law. In its application to questions
between the employer and the employed, the maxim as now used generally imports
that the workman had either expressly or by implication agreed to take upon
himself the risks attendant upon the particular work which he was engaged to
perform, and from which he has suffered injury. The question which has most
frequently to be considered is not whether he voluntarily and rashly exposed
himself to injury, but whether he agreed that, if injury should befall him, the
risk was to be his and not his masters. When, as is commonly the case, his
acceptance or non-acceptance of the risk is left to implication, the workman
cannot reasonably be held to have undertaken it unless he knew of its
existence, and appreciated or had the means of appreciating its danger. But
assuming that he did so, I am unable to accede to the suggestion that the mere
fact of his continuing at his work, with such knowledge and appreciation, will
in every case necessarily imply his acceptance. Whether it will have that
effect or not depends, in my opinion, to a considerable extent upon the nature
of the risk, and the workman's connection with it, as well as upon other
considerations which must vary according to the circumstances of each case.
Whether, in any event, the
parties could engage that the risk might extend to such recklessness as would
likely cause maiming or death would depend on considerations of policy
mentioned later in dealing with contributory negligence; but for the generality
of cases, the circumstances may present such variety in particulars that a
reference to typical situations may clarify what is intended.
If A is driving an
automobile for private purposes from X to Y and is hailed on the road by B who
requests a lift toward Y, what would most likely be said by A if the question
of misconduct of either during the trip was at that moment raised? I think he
would ordinarily say, or at least it could reasonably be found that he
implies—as he does when asked to allow a licensee to pass over his
land—"You may come along, but you must take my skill and care and
[Page 326]
the risk of my ordinary
conduct as I myself am doing, from which I am not likely to but might have a
minor lapse". At the same time it would equally be understood that he
would not engage in reckless or grossly careless driving. This is not in
conflict with the holding in Harris v. Perry & Company, in which other
elements were present.
If, on the other hand, A,
for his own purpose, takes the initiative by inviting B—assuming always the
absence of any special circumstances or notice—then it could be deemed to be
unreasonable for A to urge that he did not intend to assure B that he could
expect the ordinary care of prudent drivers to be exercised in operating the
machine. The question, as before, is what conditions as terms can A reasonably
claim to have laid down, and B reasonably held to have accepted. If the driver
was a beginner, that, again, would be a special circumstance. These examples
illustrate the fact that the basic understanding must be reduced to an actual
or constructive exchange of terms under which the commitment of the interests
of both is brought. To this we have an analogy in Bailment the exposition of
which is given by Holt C.J. in Coggs v. Bernard.
The evidence shows that on
Sunday morning the respondent Maloney started drinking at breakfast and in some
measure kept it up until the fatal event which was estimated to be about an
hour and a half later. There is no serious complaint of reckless or even excessive
speed until the last mile or so. Maloney was apparently able to stand
considerable liquor and still to retain much, at least, of his ability as a
competent driver. Some minutes before the accident an argument between him and
his brother had arisen over the year of make of a car that had just then passed
them and a bet was made. Speeding ahead and drawing to the side of the road, he
waved the other car to a stop. Going back and calling in a curt manner upon the
driver, a Mrs. Sweeney, to lower the window, he mentioned the bet and asked her
the model of her car and upon being informed returned to his own. Mrs. Sweeney
in her testimony did not mention any indication that he was unfit through drink
to be driving; his shirt collar was unbuttoned, his necktie loose, he was
perspiring and was ill-mannered, but nothing else was referred to. On the other
hand, one
[Page 327]
of the occupants of her
car, a Mr. Sterne, spoke of glassiness of eyes and that he talked thickly. But
neither mentioned any staggering or swaying in his walk although they had
noticed earlier the car as "weaving" or "zigzagging" over
the centre line of the road.
Following this incident, the
Sweeney car again passed Maloney. He seems to have been annoyed at the
"snootiness" of Mrs. Sweeney, and immediately set out to overtake
her. In doing so he is said to have reached a speed estimated by the witness
Sterne at 70 or more miles an hour, and by Mrs. Sweeney at between 40 and 50.
In the course of this career the car went out of control at a curve, jumped the
ditch, crashed into a high embankment, skidded back to the other side of the
road and ended overturned in the reverse direction. One of the young women
occupants was killed and serious injuries were caused the respondent.
The latter is a young woman
of 19 years of age whose home w.as in Windsor and who, for some months, had
been engaged as a waitress at Halifax. We have very little of her history, but
there is sufficient to conclude that her sophistication was not of the deepest
sort. Maloney seems, toward those with him, to have been somewhat dominating
and aggressive. We have no more than general circumstances surrounding the
original decision to make the journey; but there is enough to enable me to
infer that the weight of the proposal and persuasion came from him. Neither at
that point, Halifax, from which they originally set out nor at Chester can his
capacity to engage for the journey and for careful driving to the destination,
Windsor, be successfully challenged; is it then to be implied that he did so
engage? Or was the engagement subject to the condition that he should not
render himself incapable through liquor either of reaching Windsor or of
driving safely or, put conversely, that the respondent would take the risk of
any negligence which could be attributed to that eventuality?
The road they were
travelling led from Chester to Halifax from which they were still over 30 miles
distant, and Windsor is about 45 miles northwest of Halifax. They had
originally tried out a gravelled road from Chester in a more direct line to
Windsor but after going some miles turned back to the paved road and the route
via Halifax. The
[Page 328]
young woman was, therefore,
in a section of country with which she was not familiar and in surroundings by
which she was most likely to be intimidated. The answer to her request to him
to let the brother drive is significant: it was to the effect that he knew what
he was doing and did not want to be interfered with.
In that situation the prima
facie implication of reason= able care in the original undertaking—subject to
the provisions of the statute—is confirmed and that of any such qualifying
condition rebutted.
These considerations are,
in my opinion, substantially the same as those underlying Dann v. Hamilton, where Asquith J. on
facts almost identical found against the driver. The decision has been the
object of some criticism. In Insurance Commissioner v. Joyce, Dixon J.,
dissenting, after an analysis of the principle in terms of relations, observes,
If he knowingly accepts the voluntary services of a driver
affected by drink he cannot complain of improper driving caused by his
condition, because it involves no breach of duty.
That conclusion depends on the terms of the undertaking and so
far as it implies the determination to be unilateral I am unable to agree with
it. Of the judgment in Dann v. Hamilton he says:
No doubt the issue his Lordship propounded for decision was
one of fact, but, with all respect, I cannot but think that the plaintiff
should have been 'precluded. Every element was present to form a conscious and
intentional assumption of the very risk from which she suffered.
For the reasons already
given, I cannot concur in the validity of that criticism. It fails, in my
opinion, to give sufficient emphasis to the original undertaking in which the
passenger has primarily the interest and the driver, the responsibility, and in
the performance of which itself the risk resides. The unilateral formula,
adequate to the early situation's, is both inadequate and inappropriate to a
bilateral relation in which two persons are co-operating in complementary
action. It confines the enquiry into the fact sought to the external conditions
evident to the passenger, paying—apparently—no regard to the elements of the
undertaking or the governing role of the driver. In the other view the court
starts with his original acceptance
[Page 329]
of responsibility, whatever it may have been, and from the
subsequent circumstances finds whether the undertaking has been carried out
according to its terms.
In the light of these
considerations, Maloney has not established his case that the passenger at any
time accepted the continuing journey, or gave him any reason to infer that she
did, on the terms that she released him from responsibility for care and would
take the risk of any consequences resulting from the effects on him of liquor.
Nor has he shown that any condition arose which modified that responsibility
within the terms of the original undertaking.
There remains the question
of contributory negligence. The theory underlying that defence is not as clear
as it might be. In recent times the idea of a breach of duty owing to one's
self has been introduced: the injury suffered by A has been caused by the
breach of duty toward A by B and the joint or concurrent breach of a duty
toward A by A himself. But if B at the same time suffered injury, is it to be
taken as caused by a breach of duty on the part of A towards B and a similar
breach of duty towards himself by B, so that the same act in each case becomes
a breach of one of two different duties depending on which claim for injury is
being considered? The self-duty would seem to be a rationalization for the
purpose of logical consistency and completeness of the theory of a several duty
toward an injured party as against a generalized duty to be prudent in every
situation and in all directions. These contrasting conceptions have their
clearest statement in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway Company. There Cardozo C.J.
gave that of the former and Andrews J. of the latter, in the setting of which
causation becomes the determinant of liability. In the illustration just put it
seems clear that the so-called duty to one's self is of the same standard and
content as that toward another and is identical with the duty under the second
or generalized principle.
The rule that courts will not assist a claimant to recover
damages to person or property which he could reasonably have mitigated is
analogous to, although, as regards the character and extent of measures
required to be taken, perhaps not identical with the duty involved in
contributory negligence; and both seem cognate with the principle
[Page 330]
that a person may
ordinarily injure his person or damage or destroy his property or allow others
to injure him or damage or destroy his property as he pleases, except that, in
the aspect of criminal law at least, leave and licence do not extend to
maiming, much less killing, and attempted suicide is a crime.
On either principle injury
or damage to one's own interest attributable to failure to observe the standard
of care of. ordinary prudence, and conceived either as having been so caused or
as having been licensed or suffered, will be given no redress by courts. In
this case the failure charged against the plaintiff is that she maintained
herself in a situation fraught with too great possibility of danger. On that question
I am unable to say that the finding of either the fact or the degree of fault
by the trial judge and by the Appeal Division is wrong.
I would, therefore, dismiss
the appeal with costs.
KELLOCK J.:—The question in
this appeal is as to whether or not upon the evidence the appellant is entitled
to invoke the maxim volenti non fit injuria. The learned trial judge,
having found Maloney (the defendant) guilty of gross negligence, applied the
maxim and dismissed the action of the respondent Seymour (the plaintiff). Had
he not been of that view, the learned judge would have held the defence of
contributory negligence established and the plaintiff entitled to recover
seventy-five per cent of her loss. The full court considered the latter to be
the correct view, the plaintiff's appeal being allowed accordingly.
The defendant, having
invited the plaintiff to ride in his automobile to her home in Windsor, thereby
placed himself in the position of a person "who undertakes to provide for
the conveyance of another" and although he did so gratuitously, he was
"bound to exercise due and reasonable care"; per Parke B. in Lygo
v. Newbold.
This statement of the law was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Harris v.
Perry.
In the course of his judgment in the latter case, the Master of the Rolls
referred to the statement of Blackburn J. in Austin v. G. W. Ry. Co., namely: "I
think
[Page 331]
that what was said in the
case of Marshall v. York, Newcastle and Berwick Ry. Co., was quite correct.
It was there laid down that the right which a passenger by railway has to be
carried safely does not depend on his having made a contract, but that the fact
of his being a passenger casts a duty on the company to carry him safely."
A finding of volenti involves the consequence that no
such duty existed, the onus of establishing which lay upon the defendant.
In Smith v. Baker, Lord Halsbury
points out at p. 338 that a person who relies upon the maxim
must show that the plaintiff consented to the "particular thing being
done and consented to take the risk upon himself." While such consent may
be inferred from a course of conduct as well as proved by express consent, it
is not established merely by showing that the plaintiff knows there is a risk
of injury to himself. The question in each particular case is, in the language
of Lindley L.J., in Yarmouth v. France,
"not simply whether the plaintiff knew of the risk, but whether the
circumstances are such as necessarily to lead to the conclusion that the
whole risk was voluntarily incurred by the plaintiff." As put by Lord
Watson in Smith's case at p. 355, the question "is not whether he
(the plaintiff) voluntarily and rashly exposed himself to injury, but whether
he agreed that, if injury should befall him, the risk was to be his and
not his master's."
It is useful also to refer
to the language of Lord Herschell in the same case at p. 362, where, in
speaking of the particular facts there before the House, his Lordship said:
It was a mere question of risk which might never eventuate in
disaster. The plaintiff evidently did not contemplate injury as inevitable... .
The principle of these judgments was formulated by the
Judicial Committee in Letang v. Ottawa Electric,
per Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, in the language of Wills J., in Osborne v.
London & North Western Railway:
. . . if the defendants desire to succeed on the ground that
the maxim "Volenti non fit injuria" is applicable, they must obtain a
finding of fact "that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full
knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk he ran, impliedly agreed to
incur it."
[Page 332]
In my opinion, these
authorities establish that the true question is that stated in Salmond, 10th
ed., at p. 34, "Did the plaintiff give a real consent to the assumption of
the risk without compensation; did the consent really absolve the defendant
from the duty to take care?" Having regard to the statute law in force in
Nova Scotia, that question becomes in the case at bar, "Did the plaintiff
agree, expressly or by implication, to exempt the defendant from liability for
any damage suffered by the plaintiff during the carrying out of the undertaking
of the latter, occasioned by the gross negligence of the defendant?"
In his finding as to the applicability of the maxim in the
case at bar, the learned trial judge said:
That when the final phase of the journey (from Ingramport)
began, the plaintiff was aware of the intoxicated condition of the defendant
and of the character of his driving; she appreciated the risk of proceeding
with him under those circumstances; and she knew that he was likely to continue
his dangerous mode of driving and would not be deterred therefrom by protests
from his passengers; and •that with such knowledge •of his condition and
appreciation of the risk obviously incident to the driver's manner of driving,
she freely and voluntarily accepted that risk by continuing with him as driver.
In my opinion, the learned
trial judge does not address his mind to the proper point of time, namely, the
inception of the defendant's undertaking which, at the latest, was the
commencement of the journey at Chester on the morning of the accident. I have
had the advantage of reading the opinion of my brother Rand and agree with him
that that was the relevant time. In this view, I do not think it arguable that
the situation was then such as necessarily to lead to the conclusion
either that the plaintiff agreed to take upon herself the whole risk or that
the defendant accepted her into his automobile on such a footing.
If this be so, then, again
in agreement with my brother Rand, I do not understand how the defendant has
established that, by reason of anything thereafter occurring, the terms of his
undertaking were altered. The result is, as was the view of the court below,
that the present is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the
plaintiff, who "did not in her own interest take reasonable care of
herself and contributed, by this want of •care, to her own injury," to •adapt
the language of Viscount Simon delivering the
[Page 333]
judgment of the Judicial
Committee in Nance v. B.C. Electric Railway Co.. The plaintiff had
full opportunity to leave the car while it was stopped at Ingramport and she
then had the knowledge of the facts and an appreciation of the risk to herself
in continuing, which the learned trial
judge has above described.
I would therefore dismiss
the appeal with costs.
LOCKE J.:—The learned trial
judge found that the accident in which the respondent Thelma Seymour, to whom I
will refer hereinafter as the respondent, suffered the grave injuries giving
rise to this action, was caused by the gross negligence of the respondent
Maloney, and this finding has been affirmed by the unanimous judgment of the Supreme
Court in banco and is not questioned on this appeal.
Upon the issue as to
whether the respondent had voluntarily assumed the risk attendant upon driving
with Maloney when he was under the influence of liquor, the learned trial judge
made the following finding:—
That when the final phase of the journey (from Ingramport)
began, the plaintiff was aware of the intoxicated condition of the defendant
and of the character of his driving; she appreciated the risk of proceeding
with him under those circumstances; and she knew that he was likely to continue
his dangerous mode of driving and would not be deterred therefrom by protests
from his passengers; and that with such knowledge of his condition and
appreciation of the risk obviously incident to the driver's manner of driving,
she freely and voluntarily accepted that risk by continuing with him as driver.
The unanimous judgment of the Court in banco has
reversed this finding, the learned judges being all of the opinion that the
defence volenti non fit injuria had not been made out.
Under Order LVII, Rule 1, of
the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, all appeals to the court are by way of
rehearing, the rule being a replica of Order LVIII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court
in England. Rule 5 of the same Order declares that on the appeal the court
shall have power to draw inferences of fact and to give any judgment and make
[Page 334]
any order which ought to
have been made. The corresponding rule in England is Rule 4 of Order LVIII. In Powell
v. Streatham Manor,
Lord Atkin, speaking of the English Rules referred to, said in part:—
I wish to express my concurrence in the view that on appeals
from the decision of a judge sitting without a jury the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeal is free and unrestricted. The Court has to rehear, in other
words has the same right to come to decisions on the issues of fact as well as
law as the trial judge.
This statement which
expresses the opinion •of the House was followed by a statement as to the
considerations which apply when the findings at the trial turn on the
conflicting testimony of witnesses and their credibility.
In the present matter, the
question as to whether or not the respondent "freely and voluntarily, with
full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk" she ran "impliedly
agreed to incur it", the test approved by the Judicial Committee in Letang
v. Ottawa Electric Railway Company,
was one of fact. As to the veracity of the respondent, the learned trial judge
said that, having observed her closely at the trial and having since
scrutinized her evidence with great care, he had come to the conclusion that
she was a truthful witness in the main, but that her evidence as to the
character •of the various protests as to the speed of the car made
by herself and the other passengers was not too reliable. In my opinion, the
question as to whether the evidence showed that the plaintiff had given a real
consent to the assumption of the risk, absolving the defendant from the .duty
to take the limited degree of tare imposed upon him by s. 183 of the Motor
Vehicles Act (c. 6, .1932), did not in this case depend upon the views of
the trial judge as to the respondent's veracity, but rather upon the inferences
to be drawn from facts which were not in dispute.
In exercising the powers
vested in the learned judges who heard this appeal to draw inferences of fact,
they have unanimously concluded that the necessary agreement to support the
plea had not been made out. This conclusion, as is indicated by the reasons for
judgment delivered, has been reached after the most careful examination and
consideration of the evidence and is not based upon the opinion of the members
of the court as to the credibility of the
[Page 335]
plaintiff on any matter which would, in my opinion, affect the
issue. In these circumstances, I think that finding should not be interfered
with in this Court.
Upon the issue of
contributory negligence, I agree that it was shown that the respondent did not,
in her own interest, take reasonable care of herself and had contributed by
this want of care to her own injury, to adopt the language of Viscount Simon in
Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway.
I think we should not interfere with the apportionment of liability made by
the judgment appealed from.
I would dismiss this appeal
with costs.
CARTWRIGHT J.:—The relevant
facts are stated and the applicable authorities are collected and discussed in
the reasons of other members of the Court, all of which I have had the
advantage of reading, and I propose only to state shortly the conclusions at
which I have arrived.
I agree with my brother Rand
that the question to be answered in deciding whether the defence of volenti
non fit injuria was established in this case is whether the defendant can
reasonably be heard to say, as an inference from the facts, that the risk of
injury from his own misconduct was required by him to be and was accepted by
the complainant as a term of his undertaking to carry her gratuitously; and I
agree that, on the evidence, the answer should be in the negative and that
accordingly the defence mentioned should be rejected.
As to the defence of contributory negligence, it will be
observed that the respondent plaintiffs do not question the decision of the
Court en bane attributing 25% of the responsibility for the accident to the
infant plaintiff. I can find nothing in the evidence to warrant interference
with the apportionment made by the learned trial judge and concurred in by the
Court en banc.
I would dismiss the appeal
with costs.
[Page 336]
ABBOTT J.:—There is
nothing that I can usefully add to the very able reasons for judgment delivered
by Mr. Justice Doull in the Court below, and with which I am in respectful
agreement. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed with
costs.
Solicitor for the appellant: H. P. MacKeen.
Solicitor for the
respondent (plaintiff): N. D. Blanchard.
Solicitor for the
respondent (defendant): R. A. Kanigs-berg.
Email this Content