Cottingham v. Longman

Cottingham v. Longman

There was sufficient evidence and permissible circumstantial inference for the jury to identify the defendant's car as the cause of death; therefore the appellate court will not disturb the jury verdict and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
(1913) 48 SCR 542
Parties
Appellant/defendant: H. M. Cottingham; Respondent/plaintiffs: Alice Longman and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal in Tort (wrongful Death) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia Following a Jury Verdict and Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for British Columbia and trial court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Identification of Defendant's Vehicle, Circumstantial Evidence, Standard of Review of Jury Verdict, Burden of Proof in Civil Tort Actions
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Appeal Identification of Defendant's Vehicle Circumstantial Evidence Standard of Review of Jury Verdict Burden of Proof in Civil Tort Actions

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

Parties

H. M. Cottingham

Appellant/defendant

Alice Longman and Others

Respondent/plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal in Tort (wrongful Death) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia Following a Jury Verdict and Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to identify the defendant's motor-car as the vehicle causing the deceased's death
  2. 2 Whether an appellate court should disturb a jury verdict where there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably draw its conclusion
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs may rely on circumstantial evidence in a tort action without an eyewitness

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence and permissible circumstantial inference for the jury to identify the defendant's car as the cause of death; therefore the appellate court will not disturb the jury verdict and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for British Columbia and trial court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment entered on the jury verdict for plaintiffs for $5,000 affirmed