Dugas et al. v. Chevrier

Dugas et al. v. Chevrier

The trial judge properly found common responsibility: evidence showed the deceased's imprudence (and possible alcohol use) contributed materially, the truck's defective rear lights also contributed, the loaded rolls were properly secured and their falling did not constitute an additional fault, and appellate courts should not disturb such factual findings; therefore equal apportionment and damages assessment stand and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1972] SCR 285
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Regent Dugas; Appellant (defendant): General Waste and Wares Ltd.; Respondent (plaintiff): Yolande Chevrier
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Motor Vehicle/death (action Under Civil Code Art.1056) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Fault, Damages for Death, Vehicle Maintenance and Lighting, Liability of Employer for Employee
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicles Civil Law (quebec) Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Fault Damages for Death Vehicle Maintenance and Lighting +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regent Dugas

Appellant (defendant)

General Waste and Wares Ltd.

Appellant (defendant)

Yolande Chevrier

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Motor Vehicle/death (action Under Civil Code Art.1056) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendants' negligence cause the death?
  2. 2 Was the deceased driver contributorily negligent?
  3. 3 Did the falling cargo constitute an additional actionable fault?

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly found common responsibility: evidence showed the deceased's imprudence (and possible alcohol use) contributed materially, the truck's defective rear lights also contributed, the loaded rolls were properly secured and their falling did not constitute an additional fault, and appellate courts should not disturb such factual findings; therefore equal apportionment and damages assessment stand and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side (Quebec) affirmed.