O'Connor et al. v. Quigley et al.

O'Connor et al. v. Quigley et al.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge and Court of Appeal made factual findings of negligence that were unsupported or inconsistent with independent witness testimony and objective road marks; such serious inconsistencies justified disturbing concurrent findings and remitting the case for retrial.

Citation
[1958] SCR 156
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Roy O'Connor; Plaintiff/appellant: Norma O'Connor; Defendant/respondent: Robert James Quigley; Defendant/respondent: Gordon Bruce; Defendant/respondent: Arrow Transit Lines Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 1958
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (road Traffic Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Set Aside and Case Remitted for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; new trial ordered. Abbott J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Findings of Fact, Credibility of Witnesses, Onus of Proof, Concurrent Findings, New Trial, Road Traffic Accidents
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Civil Procedure Appeal Findings of Fact Credibility of Witnesses Onus of Proof Concurrent Findings +2 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy O'Connor

Plaintiff/appellant

Norma O'Connor

Plaintiff/appellant

Robert James Quigley

Defendant/respondent

Gordon Bruce

Defendant/respondent

Arrow Transit Lines Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (road Traffic Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Set Aside and Case Remitted for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's adverse credibility findings and resultant factual findings were supported by independent and objective evidence
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies between findings and physical evidence require a new trial despite concurrent findings below
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff met the onus of proving defendant Quigley was on the wrong side of the road

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge and Court of Appeal made factual findings of negligence that were unsupported or inconsistent with independent witness testimony and objective road marks; such serious inconsistencies justified disturbing concurrent findings and remitting the case for retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; new trial ordered. Abbott J. dissenting.

Orders

  • New trial directed.
  • Judgment below and counterclaim allowance set aside.