McKee and Taylor v. Malenfant and Beetham

McKee and Taylor v. Malenfant and Beetham

Where a vehicle briefly stops on its proper side of the highway with the statutorily required lights showing and the stopping does not amount to 'parking' under the Highway Traffic Act, that stopping is not actionable negligence per se; the following driver's failure to keep proper lookout and to take available measures to avoid collision was the proximate and effective cause of this accident, therefore appeal is allowed and trial judge's finding that respondent was solely liable is restored.

Citation
[1954] SCR 651
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Percy McKee; Appellant/defendant: Lloyd Taylor; Respondent/plaintiff: Eli Malenfant; Respondent/plaintiff: Earl Beetham
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1954
Procedural Posture
Negligence Motor Vehicle / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Legal Topics
Negligence, Rear End Collision, Proximate Cause, 'parked or Left Standing' Under Highway Traffic Act, Apportionment of Liability
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Rear End Collision Proximate Cause 'parked or Left Standing' Under Highway Traffic Act Apportionment of Liability

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Percy McKee

Appellant/defendant

Lloyd Taylor

Appellant/defendant

Eli Malenfant

Respondent/plaintiff

Earl Beetham

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence Motor Vehicle / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether stopping a truck briefly on the highway with statutory lights on constituted actionable negligence
  2. 2 Whether the truck was 'parked or left standing' within the meaning of s.40(1) (now s.43(1)) of The Highway Traffic Act
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's negligence was the sole proximate cause or whether there was concurrent negligence requiring apportionment

Ratio Decidendi

Where a vehicle briefly stops on its proper side of the highway with the statutorily required lights showing and the stopping does not amount to 'parking' under the Highway Traffic Act, that stopping is not actionable negligence per se; the following driver's failure to keep proper lookout and to take available measures to avoid collision was the proximate and effective cause of this accident, therefore appeal is allowed and trial judge's finding that respondent was solely liable is restored.