Napper c. Cité de Sherbrooke

Napper c. Cité de Sherbrooke

The appeal is allowed because the municipality is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its constables who, while facilitating the race, parked a police vehicle in the roadway and permitted a second vehicle to advance opposite it at a short distance beyond the finish line, creating a dangerous obstacle; the trial judge's findings were tainted by the improper admission of an extra‑judicial statement and other factual errors; damages are recalculated with a higher award for partial incapacity and without applying exchange premium to non‑pecuniary awards and Canadian disbursements.

Citation
[1968] RCS 716
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Carl F. Napper; Respondent / Defendant: Cité de Sherbrooke
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Municipal Liability / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for appellant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Admissibility of Extra Judicial Statements, Reversal of Factual Findings, Quantum of Damages, Exchange Premium
Source Language
French
Tort Municipal Liability Evidence Civil Procedure Damages Negligence Vicarious Liability Admissibility of Extra Judicial Statements +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl F. Napper

Appellant / Plaintiff

Cité de Sherbrooke

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Municipal Liability / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the municipality is vicariously liable for negligence of its constables who created an obstacle near the finish line
  2. 2 Whether an extra-judicial statement by a third party was improperly admitted and vitiated findings of fact
  3. 3 Whether the cyclist assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the municipality is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its constables who, while facilitating the race, parked a police vehicle in the roadway and permitted a second vehicle to advance opposite it at a short distance beyond the finish line, creating a dangerous obstacle; the trial judge's findings were tainted by the improper admission of an extra‑judicial statement and other factual errors; damages are recalculated with a higher award for partial incapacity and without applying exchange premium to non‑pecuniary awards and Canadian disbursements.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for appellant

Orders

  • Allow appeal and set aside judgments below
  • Award damages to appellant in the amount of $43,243.21 with interest from January 30, 1962