Harrison et al. v. Bourn

Harrison et al. v. Bourn

Given the defendant's admission that she did not see the oncoming car despite an unobstructed view while making the left turn, and the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury that failure to see what is plainly visible where there is a duty to look constitutes negligence, the jury verdict absolving the defendant was unreasonable; appeal allowed and a new trial directed.

Citation
[1958] SCR 733
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Michael Harrison; Plaintiff Appellant (infant Represented): Clare McKay (infant) by next friend F.J. McKay; Plaintiff Appellant (next Friend): F.J. McKay; Defendant Respondent: Mary A. Bourn
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 1958
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Motor Vehicle Negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Trial With Jury
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial directed; costs awarded to appellants in this Court and in the Court of Appeal; costs of the first trial reserved to the trial judge.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty to Look Before Turning, Jury Verdict Review, New Trial
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicle Law Statutory Duty Civil Procedure Negligence Duty to Look Before Turning Jury Verdict Review New Trial

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

Michael Harrison

Plaintiff Appellant

Clare McKay (infant) by next friend F.J. McKay

Plaintiff Appellant (infant Represented)

F.J. McKay

Plaintiff Appellant (next Friend)

Mary A. Bourn

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Motor Vehicle Negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Trial With Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant driver was negligent in making a left-hand turn across lanes where she had a clear view to the north
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached the statutory duty under s.41(1)(d) of The Highway Traffic Act by failing to see that the movement could be made in safety
  3. 3 Whether the jury verdict absolving the defendant was so unreasonable and unjust that no jury acting judicially could have reached it

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendant's admission that she did not see the oncoming car despite an unobstructed view while making the left turn, and the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury that failure to see what is plainly visible where there is a duty to look constitutes negligence, the jury verdict absolving the defendant was unreasonable; appeal allowed and a new trial directed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial directed; costs awarded to appellants in this Court and in the Court of Appeal; costs of the first trial reserved to the trial judge.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial directed