Petijevich et al. v. Law

Petijevich et al. v. Law

The jury verdict could not stand because the trial judge reversed the requisite order of jury questions, admitted inadmissible identification evidence, and improperly suggested the ultimate negligence doctrine, thereby prejudicing the jury; on the admissible evidence the defendant demonstrably failed in his duty to keep proper lookout, to enter the intersection at a speed allowing him to stop, and to yield right‑of‑way to a pedestrian lawfully in the crosswalk, so liability is established and a new trial is limited to assessment of damages.

Citation
[1969] SCR 257
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Rodojka Petijevich; Plaintiff Appellant: Mike Petijevich; Defendant Respondent: Richard John Law
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered limited to damages only; liability determined against defendant; costs awarded to appellants in this Court and both lower courts.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Right of Way at Crosswalks, Admission of Identification Evidence (res Gestae), Ultimate Negligence/last Clear Chance Doctrine, Jury Directions and Question Order, New Trial Limited to Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicle Law Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Right of Way at Crosswalks Admission of Identification Evidence (res Gestae) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodojka Petijevich

Plaintiff Appellant

Mike Petijevich

Plaintiff Appellant

Richard John Law

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian lawfully in a marked crosswalk at a traffic‑controlled intersection
  2. 2 Whether the female plaintiff was solely negligent or contributorily negligent such that liability was hers
  3. 3 Whether evidence of a witness who saw a woman run at the intersection ten minutes earlier was admissible (res gestae)

Ratio Decidendi

The jury verdict could not stand because the trial judge reversed the requisite order of jury questions, admitted inadmissible identification evidence, and improperly suggested the ultimate negligence doctrine, thereby prejudicing the jury; on the admissible evidence the defendant demonstrably failed in his duty to keep proper lookout, to enter the intersection at a speed allowing him to stop, and to yield right‑of‑way to a pedestrian lawfully in the crosswalk, so liability is established and a new trial is limited to assessment of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered limited to damages only; liability determined against defendant; costs awarded to appellants in this Court and both lower courts.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • New trial ordered limited to assessment of damages only.