Hartman v. Fisette

Hartman v. Fisette

Where evidence permitted, trial judge properly found the pedestrian contributorily negligent; s.144(1) creates a rebuttable presumption that does not bar the defendant from proving the plaintiff's partial fault; last clear chance doctrine does not displace contributory negligence statute on these facts; award for loss of expectation of life must be set aside absent evidence linking accident to death; award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities upheld; appeal dismissed as to liability and allowed in part as to damages (general damages altered to $7,000).

Citation
[1977] 1 SCR 248
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: James Barclay Hartman, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Margaret Hartman, deceased; Defendant/respondent: Donald Peter Fisette
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 1976
Procedural Posture
Tort Personal Injury (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to liability; appeal allowed in part as to damages; general damages altered to $7,000; total award before apportionment $19,467.08; Martland J. dissented.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Statutory Burden of Proof, Apportionment of Fault, Last Clear Chance Doctrine, Loss of Expectation of Life
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Negligence Damages Contributory Negligence Statutory Burden of Proof Apportionment of Fault Last Clear Chance Doctrine +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Barclay Hartman, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Margaret Hartman, deceased

Plaintiff/appellant

Donald Peter Fisette

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Personal Injury (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was negligent under The Highway Traffic Act
  2. 2 Whether appellant was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Effect and scope of statutory onus in s.144(1) of The Highway Traffic Act

Ratio Decidendi

Where evidence permitted, trial judge properly found the pedestrian contributorily negligent; s.144(1) creates a rebuttable presumption that does not bar the defendant from proving the plaintiff's partial fault; last clear chance doctrine does not displace contributory negligence statute on these facts; award for loss of expectation of life must be set aside absent evidence linking accident to death; award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities upheld; appeal dismissed as to liability and allowed in part as to damages (general damages altered to $7,000).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to liability; appeal allowed in part as to damages; general damages altered to $7,000; total award before apportionment $19,467.08; Martland J. dissented.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on issue of liability
  • General damages altered to $7,000