McMonagle v. Société de Réhabilitation Inc.

McMonagle v. Société de Réhabilitation Inc.

Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving a sudden emergency; objective witness evidence contradicted the defendants' account and supported the trial judge's finding that defendant Fredette lost control and negligently crossed into plaintiff's lane; therefore the appeal was allowed and the trial judgment restored.

Citation
[1960] SCR 119
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Roy McMonagle; Respondent / Defendant: La Société de Réhabilitation Incorporée; Respondent / Defendant: Ernest Fredette
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored in favour of plaintiff
Legal Topics
Negligence, Sudden Emergency Doctrine, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses, Appeal on Facts
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicles Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Sudden Emergency Doctrine Burden of Proof Credibility of Witnesses +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy McMonagle

Appellant / Plaintiff

La Société de Réhabilitation Incorporée

Respondent / Defendant

Ernest Fredette

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants proved that a sudden emergency caused the accident
  2. 2 Which party's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision
  3. 3 How to resolve contradictory testimony and which witnesses to prefer

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving a sudden emergency; objective witness evidence contradicted the defendants' account and supported the trial judge's finding that defendant Fredette lost control and negligently crossed into plaintiff's lane; therefore the appeal was allowed and the trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored in favour of plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Cliche J. restored and action maintained