Ross v. Reopel

Ross v. Reopel

Where the trial judge found that the defendant's speed was not excessive and that the ten‑year‑old plaintiff's own negligent act in placing himself in the defendant's path was the immediate and dominant cause of the accident, the driver was not liable and the appellate court erred in substituting its view for the trial judge's factual findings.

Citation
[1938] SCR 171
Parties
Defendant/appellant: H. R. Ross; Plaintiff/respondent: Theodore Reopel; Plaintiff/respondent: Lyla Reopel
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 1937
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Negligence (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed; judgment of D. A. McDonald J. dismissing the action reinstated.
Legal Topics
Excessive Speed, Contributory Negligence, Proximate Cause, Liability of Driver, Infant Pedestrian
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicles Negligence Personal Injury Excessive Speed Contributory Negligence Proximate Cause Liability of Driver +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. R. Ross

Defendant/appellant

Theodore Reopel

Plaintiff/respondent

Lyla Reopel

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Negligence (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant driving at an excessive speed constituting negligence?
  2. 2 Was the ten‑year‑old plaintiff's conduct the proximate or ultimate cause of the collision?
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial judge's factual findings?

Ratio Decidendi

Where the trial judge found that the defendant's speed was not excessive and that the ten‑year‑old plaintiff's own negligent act in placing himself in the defendant's path was the immediate and dominant cause of the accident, the driver was not liable and the appellate court erred in substituting its view for the trial judge's factual findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed; judgment of D. A. McDonald J. dismissing the action reinstated.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed.