Byron v. Williams et al.

Byron v. Williams et al.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment because the trial judge did not misdirect the jury on liability—the jury's exoneration of the deceased and finding of defendant negligence were supported by evidence and entitled to deference—and the judge's remarks on actuarial figures and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1968] SCR 314
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Germaine Anne Cecile Byron; Defendant Respondent: Isobel May Williams; Defendant Respondent: Roger Barry Williams
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 February 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Negligence (motor Vehicle) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment Restoring Trial Verdict
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Jury Directions, Quantum of Damages, Fatal Accidents Act
Source Language
english
Torts Motor Vehicles Negligence Damages Contributory Negligence Jury Directions Quantum of Damages Fatal Accidents Act

Source-derived case record

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

Germaine Anne Cecile Byron

Plaintiff Appellant

Isobel May Williams

Defendant Respondent

Roger Barry Williams

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Negligence (motor Vehicle) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment Restoring Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on liability by failing to direct that the deceased must have been negligent
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on damages by mentioning ceiling and floor figures and whether that misdirection required a new trial
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial on liability and/or quantum

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment because the trial judge did not misdirect the jury on liability—the jury's exoneration of the deceased and finding of defendant negligence were supported by evidence and entitled to deference—and the judge's remarks on actuarial figures and monetary ranges did not constitute substantial misdirection or a miscarriage of justice requiring a new trial on damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and trial judgment restored.
  • Costs to the appellant here and below.