Wilkinson v. Shapiro

Wilkinson v. Shapiro

The trial judge misdirected the jury by stating the defendant could discharge the statutory onus by proving the plaintiff was partly negligent and by constraining the jury to decide only 'whose negligence caused the accident'; correct law requires the defendant to satisfy the jury that the loss did not arise through any negligence or improper conduct on his part, and failure to properly instruct on that point warranted a new trial.

Citation
[1944] SCR 443
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Angus C. Wilkinson; Respondent Plaintiff: Mary Shapiro; Respondent Plaintiff: Joseph Shapiro
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 November 1944
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Trial With Jury Below
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal ordering a new trial affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Jury Directions, Highway Traffic Act S.48(1), New Trial
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Onus of Proof Jury Directions Highway Traffic Act S.48(1) +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angus C. Wilkinson

Appellant Defendant

Mary Shapiro

Respondent Plaintiff

Joseph Shapiro

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Trial With Jury Below

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature and extent of defendant's onus under s.48(1) of the Highway Traffic Act
  2. 2 Whether trial judge misdirected jury in explaining onus and framing the issues
  3. 3 Whether defendant could discharge statutory onus by proving that plaintiff was partly negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected the jury by stating the defendant could discharge the statutory onus by proving the plaintiff was partly negligent and by constraining the jury to decide only 'whose negligence caused the accident'; correct law requires the defendant to satisfy the jury that the loss did not arise through any negligence or improper conduct on his part, and failure to properly instruct on that point warranted a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal ordering a new trial affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order of the Court of Appeal ordering a new trial affirmed.