L. V. Wolfe and Sons et al. v. Giesbrecht et al.

L. V. Wolfe and Sons et al. v. Giesbrecht et al.

The trial judge's charge improperly emphasized the appellants' conduct and minimized potential negligence by the respondents, thereby failing to fairly submit contested factual issues to the jury; because the issues were not adequately tried and the jury's verdict may have been influenced by misdirection, the Court of Appeal correctly ordered a new trial and that order is affirmed; the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
[1945] SCR 441
Parties
Defendant/appellant: L. V. Wolfe and Sons et al.; Plaintiff/respondent: David J. Giesbrecht et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1945
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal and Cross Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; Court of Appeal Ordered New Trial (liability); Appeal and Cross Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed; new trial ordered on liability.
Legal Topics
Jury Instructions, Misdirection, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Duty of Care, New Trial
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Civil Procedure Jury Instructions Misdirection Contributory Negligence Causation +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 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. V. Wolfe and Sons et al.

Defendant/appellant

David J. Giesbrecht et al.

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal and Cross Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; Court of Appeal Ordered New Trial (liability); Appeal and Cross Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury finding that defendant should have stopped before entering smoke is responsive to the pleaded allegations and constitutes effective negligence causing the accident
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by emphasizing one party's conduct and minimizing the other's such that the issues were not fairly submitted
  3. 3 Whether a plaintiff's action should be dismissed where a jury verdict is influenced by misdirection or is unresponsive to pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's charge improperly emphasized the appellants' conduct and minimized potential negligence by the respondents, thereby failing to fairly submit contested factual issues to the jury; because the issues were not adequately tried and the jury's verdict may have been influenced by misdirection, the Court of Appeal correctly ordered a new trial and that order is affirmed; the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed; new trial ordered on liability.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan ([1944] 1 W.W.R. 634; [1944] 2 D.L.R. 564) affirmed
  • New trial ordered limited to liability