Great Eastern Oil and Import Company Limited and Angus Oakley v. F.E. Best Motor Accessories Company Limited

Great Eastern Oil and Import Company Limited and Angus Oakley v. F.E. Best Motor Accessories Company Limited

The deliveryman Oakley was negligent and his negligence was the direct, proximate cause of the fire; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent because defendants knew and accepted the premises' condition and Oakley's negligence was subsequent and severable under s.6 of the Contributory Negligence Act; accordingly plaintiff entitled to full damages and costs.

Citation
[1962] SCR 118
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Great Eastern Oil and Import Company Limited; Co Defendant/appellant: Angus Oakley; Plaintiff/respondent: Frederick E. Best Motor Accessories Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Newfoundland (on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgments below set aside and judgment entered for plaintiff for full damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Proximate Cause, Jurisdiction of Superior Courts, Damages
Source Language
English
Torts Procedural Law Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Proximate Cause Jurisdiction of Superior Courts Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Eastern Oil and Import Company Limited

Defendant/appellant

Angus Oakley

Co Defendant/appellant

Frederick E. Best Motor Accessories Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Newfoundland (on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Liability for negligence of defendant's servant during gasoline delivery
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent such that damages should be reduced
  3. 3 Whether s.6 of the Contributory Negligence Act barred consideration of plaintiff avoidance conduct because defendant's negligence was subsequent and severable

Ratio Decidendi

The deliveryman Oakley was negligent and his negligence was the direct, proximate cause of the fire; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent because defendants knew and accepted the premises' condition and Oakley's negligence was subsequent and severable under s.6 of the Contributory Negligence Act; accordingly plaintiff entitled to full damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgments below set aside and judgment entered for plaintiff for full damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal allowed