McLean v. Pettigrew

McLean v. Pettigrew

Appeal dismissed because respondent satisfied the required two conditions: the defendant's negligent conduct was actionable under Quebec law (delict under art. 1053 C.C.) and was wrongful (non‑justifiable) at the place of commission (Ontario) because it violated Ontario Highway Traffic Act s.27 (careless driving); therefore defendant liable and judgment awarding $5,536.18 affirmed. The Court also held that gratuitous carriage by a benevolent driver gives rise to delictual, not contractual, liability in the ordinary case.

Citation
[1945] SCR 62
Parties
Appellant (defendant): H. J. G. McLean; Respondent (plaintiff): Dame Janet Alice Pettigrew
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 1944
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (automobile) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of trial court and Quebec Court of King's Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Guest Passenger Liability, Contractual Vs Delictual Liability, Lex Loci Delicti, Statutory Punishability
Source Language
English
Torts Conflict of Laws Motor Vehicle Law Negligence Guest Passenger Liability Contractual Vs Delictual Liability Lex Loci Delicti Statutory Punishability

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. J. G. McLean

Appellant (defendant)

Dame Janet Alice Pettigrew

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (automobile) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a benevolent driver-passenger relationship creates a contract (contract de bienfaisance) or gives rise only to delictual liability
  2. 2 Whether liability should be characterized as contractual or quasi-delictual under Quebec law
  3. 3 Which law governs when a tort is committed in a different province (application of lex loci delicti vs lex fori)

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because respondent satisfied the required two conditions: the defendant's negligent conduct was actionable under Quebec law (delict under art. 1053 C.C.) and was wrongful (non‑justifiable) at the place of commission (Ontario) because it violated Ontario Highway Traffic Act s.27 (careless driving); therefore defendant liable and judgment awarding $5,536.18 affirmed. The Court also held that gratuitous carriage by a benevolent driver gives rise to delictual, not contractual, liability in the ordinary case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of trial court and Quebec Court of King's Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment below affirmed