Macklin v. Young

Macklin v. Young

The Supreme Court restored the trial judge’s judgment that the jury’s finding of equal negligence by both drivers must stand because the evidence supported the finding and the sudden emergency defence did not excuse Young’s leftward swerve; however the Court struck out the trial court’s indemnity award to the defendant in respect of the wife’s damages because, under the Married Women’s Property Act, the husband could not be sued by his wife and therefore there was no joint and several liability giving rise to contribution or indemnity under s.3 of the Negligence Act.

Citation
[1933] SCR 603
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Fred T. Macklin; Plaintiff/respondent (driver): James A. Young; Plaintiff/respondent (passenger/wife): Mary I. Young
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1933
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence (motor Vehicle Tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; trial judgment restored on jury findings of equal negligence; paragraph awarding indemnity to defendant against James A. Young for half of Mrs. Young’s damages struck out.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Indemnity and Contribution, Married Women’s Property Act, Sudden Emergency Doctrine
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Family Property Law Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Indemnity and Contribution Married Women’s Property Act +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fred T. Macklin

Defendant/appellant

James A. Young

Plaintiff/respondent (driver)

Mary I. Young

Plaintiff/respondent (passenger/wife)

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence (motor Vehicle Tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury finding that both drivers were equally negligent should be upheld
  2. 2 Whether Young’s act of swerving to the left was excused by a sudden emergency created by Macklin
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity under s.3 of the Negligence Act for damages awarded to the wife given the Married Women’s Property Act prohibition on a wife suing her husband

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court restored the trial judge’s judgment that the jury’s finding of equal negligence by both drivers must stand because the evidence supported the finding and the sudden emergency defence did not excuse Young’s leftward swerve; however the Court struck out the trial court’s indemnity award to the defendant in respect of the wife’s damages because, under the Married Women’s Property Act, the husband could not be sued by his wife and therefore there was no joint and several liability giving rise to contribution or indemnity under s.3 of the Negligence Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; trial judgment restored on jury findings of equal negligence; paragraph awarding indemnity to defendant against James A. Young for half of Mrs. Young’s damages struck out.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part
  • Judgment of the trial court restored on the jury findings of equal negligence