Bell and MacLaren v. Robinson

Bell and MacLaren v. Robinson

Because there was evidence supporting the trial judge's findings and no palpable misuse of his advantage in observing witnesses, and because the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence after the truck breached s.131, the appellate court erred in reducing the award; the trial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1960] SCR 611
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Robert M. Bell, administrator of the Estate of George MacLaren; Plaintiff/appellant: Elegetha Candace MacLaren; Defendant/respondent: Arthur S. Robinson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Negligence (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored; costs to appellants throughout.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Findings of Fact and Appellate Review, Burden of Proof, Damages, Statutory Duties of Drivers
Source Language
english
Motor Vehicles Torts Civil Procedure Statutory Causes of Action Negligence Contributory Negligence Findings of Fact and Appellate Review Burden of Proof +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert M. Bell, administrator of the Estate of George MacLaren

Plaintiff/appellant

Elegetha Candace MacLaren

Plaintiff/appellant

Arthur S. Robinson

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Negligence (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate court should disturb trial judge's findings of fact made sitting without a jury
  2. 2 Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent such that damages should be reduced
  3. 3 Who bears the burden to prove the deceased failed to take an opportunity to avoid collision after the opposing driver's breach of s.131

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was evidence supporting the trial judge's findings and no palpable misuse of his advantage in observing witnesses, and because the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence after the truck breached s.131, the appellate court erred in reducing the award; the trial judgment must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored; costs to appellants throughout.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal and restore the judgment of Robichaud J.
  • Award costs throughout to the appellants.