Fuller v. Nickel

Fuller v. Nickel

Majority restored trial judge's dismissal: plaintiffs failed to prove on balance that appellant's statutory infractions (absence of clearance lights and excess width) were the direct cause of the collision; rather the accident would not have occurred if the plaintiff-driver had complied with s.47(1) and kept to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1949] SCR 601
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Paul Fuller; Respondent/plaintiff: John Nickel; Respondent/plaintiff: Robert Moore; Respondent/plaintiff: Bertha Moore
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1949
Procedural Posture
Tort — Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division (trial Judgment Dismissing Action; Court of Appeal Reversed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge dismissing the action restored.
Legal Topics
Duty to Keep Right of Centre Line (s.47(1)), Causation (causa Causans), Effect of Statutory Non Compliance (clearance Lights; Vehicle Width), Appellate Deference to Trial Judge Findings, Balance of Probabilities
Source Language
english
Tort Negligence Motor Vehicles Statutory and Regulatory Compliance Evidence and Burden of Proof Duty to Keep Right of Centre Line (s.47(1)) Causation (causa Causans) Effect of Statutory Non Compliance (clearance Lights; Vehicle Width) +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Fuller

Appellant/defendant

John Nickel

Respondent/plaintiff

Robert Moore

Respondent/plaintiff

Bertha Moore

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort — Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division (trial Judgment Dismissing Action; Court of Appeal Reversed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absence of clearance lights and unlawful width of truck were the direct cause of the collision
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff complied with s.47(1) (keeping to the right of centre) and whether failure to do so was the cause
  3. 3 Which party bore the burden of proof and whether plaintiffs discharged it

Ratio Decidendi

Majority restored trial judge's dismissal: plaintiffs failed to prove on balance that appellant's statutory infractions (absence of clearance lights and excess width) were the direct cause of the collision; rather the accident would not have occurred if the plaintiff-driver had complied with s.47(1) and kept to the right of the centre line, and the evidence on position and causation was inconclusive in plaintiffs' favour.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge dismissing the action restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of McLaurin J. dismissing the action restored