Dumesnil v. Sheehy

Dumesnil v. Sheehy

s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act does not apply until plaintiff proves the defendant's automobile was the effective cause of the damage; the trial judge erred in shifting the burden to defendant and in his factual conclusions; on re-examination the evidence does not establish on a balance of probabilities that appellant was at fault, therefore appeal allowed and action dismissed.

Citation
[1976] 1 SCR 152
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Paul Dumesnil; Respondent/plaintiff: Dame Antoinette Sheehy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Motor Vehicle Tort / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs in all Courts.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Burden of Proof, Right of Way, Highway Victims Indemnity Act S.3, Highway Code Ss.40, 45
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Causation Burden of Proof Right of Way Highway Victims Indemnity Act S.3 +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Dumesnil

Appellant/defendant

Dame Antoinette Sheehy

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Motor Vehicle Tort / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act establishes a presumption shifting burden to defendant
  2. 2 Whether appellant was negligent in stopping at the intersection rather than the stop sign
  3. 3 Whether both drivers failed to keep to the right and are jointly liable

Ratio Decidendi

s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act does not apply until plaintiff proves the defendant's automobile was the effective cause of the damage; the trial judge erred in shifting the burden to defendant and in his factual conclusions; on re-examination the evidence does not establish on a balance of probabilities that appellant was at fault, therefore appeal allowed and action dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs in all Courts.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Action dismissed