Fanjoy v. Keller

Fanjoy v. Keller

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's awards because the Appeal Division committed errors in principle and acted unreasonably in reducing general damages and loss of income: the injury was proven by expert evidence to be a severe, disabling whiplash with long-term professional consequences, the trial judge properly estimated loss of income given fluctuating professional earnings, and the causal link to the coronary attack remained unproven so damages for that period were excluded.

Citation
[1974] SCR 315
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Roy W. Fanjoy; Defendant/respondent: Ronald Keller
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 1973
Procedural Posture
Torts Personal Injury (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored (majority). Dissent by Judson and Ritchie JJ. upheld appellate deference view but were minority.
Legal Topics
Damages, Personal Injury, Whiplash (flexion Extension Injury), Loss of Income, Appellate Review Standards
Source Language
English
Torts Damages Personal Injury Whiplash (flexion Extension Injury) Loss of Income Appellate Review Standards

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy W. Fanjoy

Plaintiff/appellant

Ronald Keller

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Torts Personal Injury (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate court erred in reducing the trial judge's award for general damages
  2. 2 Whether the appellate court erred in reducing or striking the award for loss of income (special damages)
  3. 3 Whether the coronary event was causally connected to the accident and thus compensable

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's awards because the Appeal Division committed errors in principle and acted unreasonably in reducing general damages and loss of income: the injury was proven by expert evidence to be a severe, disabling whiplash with long-term professional consequences, the trial judge properly estimated loss of income given fluctuating professional earnings, and the causal link to the coronary attack remained unproven so damages for that period were excluded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored (majority). Dissent by Judson and Ritchie JJ. upheld appellate deference view but were minority.

Orders

  • Restore trial award for general damages in the sum of $25,000 CAD
  • Restore trial award for special damages in the sum of $8,015 CAD (including loss of income of $7,861 CAD)