Herd v. Terkuc

Herd v. Terkuc

When a jury’s initial answers demonstrate they have failed to address an essential question presented by the evidence and the charge, the trial judge has the power and duty to instruct the jury to reconsider their answers before the verdict is recorded; the judge’s brief redirection was adequate and the trial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1960] SCR 602
Parties
Defendant/appellant: James Herd; Plaintiff/respondent: Zvone Terkuc
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored and Court of Appeal order for new trial set aside.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Jury Directions, Reconsideration of Verdicts, Motor Vehicle Collision
Source Language
english
Tort Civil Procedure Evidence Negligence Jury Directions Reconsideration of Verdicts Motor Vehicle Collision

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Herd

Defendant/appellant

Zvone Terkuc

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motor Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge may instruct a jury to reconsider answers to special questions after the jury returns answers but before verdict is recorded
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by sending the jury back without consulting counsel
  3. 3 Whether the jury’s initial answers showed they failed to address the essential issue (which driver had the green light)

Ratio Decidendi

When a jury’s initial answers demonstrate they have failed to address an essential question presented by the evidence and the charge, the trial judge has the power and duty to instruct the jury to reconsider their answers before the verdict is recorded; the judge’s brief redirection was adequate and the trial judgment dismissing the action was properly restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored and Court of Appeal order for new trial set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Wells J. dismissing the action restored