Cook v. Lewis

Cook v. Lewis

The Court held that the jury's exculpatory finding was perverse and that where a plaintiff proves he was shot by one of two defendants and the defendants' simultaneous/nearly simultaneous negligent conduct has made identification impossible, the onus shifts to the wrongdoer(s) to exculpate themselves; accordingly the Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's order setting aside the trial dismissal and ordering a new trial.

Citation
[1951] SCR 830
Parties
Appellant/defendant: David Cook; Respondent/plaintiff: Robert Lewis
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 1951
Procedural Posture
Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal setting aside trial dismissal and ordering a new trial affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Joint Tortfeasors, Causation, Jury Directions, Hunting Accident
Source Language
English
Torts Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Onus of Proof Joint Tortfeasors Causation Jury Directions +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Cook

Appellant/defendant

Robert Lewis

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jury finding that plaintiff was shot by one of two defendants but unable to say which precluded liability
  2. 2 Whether jury's finding that injuries were not caused by negligence of either defendant was perverse
  3. 3 Whether onus shifts to defendants where plaintiff proves he was shot by one of two and defendants' conduct made identification impossible

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the jury's exculpatory finding was perverse and that where a plaintiff proves he was shot by one of two defendants and the defendants' simultaneous/nearly simultaneous negligent conduct has made identification impossible, the onus shifts to the wrongdoer(s) to exculpate themselves; accordingly the Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's order setting aside the trial dismissal and ordering a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal setting aside trial dismissal and ordering a new trial affirmed.

Orders

  • New trial ordered
  • Appeal dismissed with costs