Maxwell v. Callbeck

Maxwell v. Callbeck

The Contributory Negligence Act of Alberta did not apply to an accident on Oct 30, 1936 because the statute is prima facie prospective and contained no expression or implication of retroactivity; on the facts the trial judge's findings that the plaintiff's inadequate lighting and motorcycle condition caused or at least contributed to the collision were supported by evidence, so the trial judgment dismissing the action should be restored.

Citation
[1939] SCR 440
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Robert Maxwell; Respondent / Plaintiff: Dawson Callbeck
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 1939
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Last Clear Chance Doctrine, Retroactivity of Statutes, Apportionment of Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Statutory Interpretation Contributory Negligence Last Clear Chance Doctrine Retroactivity of Statutes Apportionment of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Maxwell

Appellant / Defendant

Dawson Callbeck

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Alberta Contributory Negligence Act, 1 Geo. VI, 1937, ch. 18, applied to a collision occurring before the statute came into force but to an action commenced after it came into force
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's negligence alone caused the accident or whether negligence was contributory
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the collision

Ratio Decidendi

The Contributory Negligence Act of Alberta did not apply to an accident on Oct 30, 1936 because the statute is prima facie prospective and contained no expression or implication of retroactivity; on the facts the trial judge's findings that the plaintiff's inadequate lighting and motorcycle condition caused or at least contributed to the collision were supported by evidence, so the trial judgment dismissing the action should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of trial judge restored dismissing plaintiff's action with costs throughout