Jetté and Larocque et al. v. Trudel-Dupuis

Jetté and Larocque et al. v. Trudel-Dupuis

The appeals were dismissed because there was no manifest error in the findings of contributory negligence by both drivers or in the damages awarded; legally, the sudden‑emergency defence is available to a volunteer driver against a gratuitous passenger, and evidence produced by one defendant in a joint action may be considered against co-defendants to avoid inconsistent outcomes.

Citation
[1959] SCR 428
Parties
Plaintiff Respondent: Dame Estelle Trudel-Dupuis; Defendant Appellant: Maurice Jetté; Defendant Appellant: Charles Larocque; Defendant Appellant: Hervé Drolet; Defendant Appellant: Lucien Drolet
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Joint and Several Liability, Contributory Negligence, Gratuitous Passenger Liability, Defence of "agony of Collision", Admissibility of Co Defendant Evidence
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Tort Civil Liability Joint and Several Liability Contributory Negligence Gratuitous Passenger Liability Defence of "agony of Collision" Admissibility of Co Defendant Evidence

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

Parties

Dame Estelle Trudel-Dupuis

Plaintiff Respondent

Maurice Jetté

Defendant Appellant

Charles Larocque

Defendant Appellant

Hervé Drolet

Defendant Appellant

Lucien Drolet

Defendant Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether both drivers were jointly and severally liable for fatal injury to a gratuitous passenger
  2. 2 Whether the defence of "agony of collision" (sudden emergency) is available to a volunteer driver against a gratuitous passenger
  3. 3 Whether evidence led by one defendant in a joint action may be used against a co-defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because there was no manifest error in the findings of contributory negligence by both drivers or in the damages awarded; legally, the sudden‑emergency defence is available to a volunteer driver against a gratuitous passenger, and evidence produced by one defendant in a joint action may be considered against co-defendants to avoid inconsistent outcomes.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments below affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and the trial judgment affirmed.