Beaudin v. Choquette

Beaudin v. Choquette

Majority: appellant's unlooked-for left turn across the road without signaling or looking was the sole proximate cause; respondent's credible affirmative evidence that the horn was sounded twice rebutted the statutory presumption under s.53(2) and relieved respondent of liability; s.36(1) prescriptive distance for crossing does not apply to overtaking.

Citation
[1949] SCR 348
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Maurice Beaudin; Defendant Respondent: Fernand Choquette
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 1949
Procedural Posture
Torts Motor Vehicle Collision / Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Burden of Proof and Statutory Onus, Statutory Presumption of Fault, Overtaking/passing Rules, Use of Horn/signal Requirements
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Evidence Law Negligence Burden of Proof and Statutory Onus Statutory Presumption of Fault Overtaking/passing Rules Use of Horn/signal Requirements

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

Parties

Maurice Beaudin

Plaintiff Appellant

Fernand Choquette

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Torts Motor Vehicle Collision / Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's sudden left turn without signalling was the sole cause of the collision
  2. 2 Whether respondent discharged statutory onus under Motor Vehicles Act s.53(2) by proving he was not negligent
  3. 3 Whether horn was sounded and whether the warning was given in a reasonable/effective manner under s.36(4) and s.29(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: appellant's unlooked-for left turn across the road without signaling or looking was the sole proximate cause; respondent's credible affirmative evidence that the horn was sounded twice rebutted the statutory presumption under s.53(2) and relieved respondent of liability; s.36(1) prescriptive distance for crossing does not apply to overtaking.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs