Beach v. Healey

Beach v. Healey

There was evidence properly submitted to the jury on which they could reasonably find no negligence on the part of the driver and contributory negligence by the deceased; therefore the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial and the trial judgment dismissing the action is restored. Additionally, the correct form for posing the negligence question to the jury where statutory onus rests on the driver is that set out in Newell v. Acme Farmers Dairy Ltd.

Citation
[1943] SCR 272
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Theodore Beach Sr.; Appellant (defendant): Theodore Beach Jr.; Respondent (plaintiff): Robert J. Healey
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 1943
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal Following Trial Under Fatal Accidents Act (motor Vehicle Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court After Trial Judgment and Court of Appeal Order for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored with costs throughout.
Legal Topics
Onus of Proof Under Highway Traffic Act, Form of Questions to Jury, Contributory Negligence, Sufficiency of Evidence for Jury Verdict
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Motor Vehicles Wrongful Death Procedural Law (jury Questions) Onus of Proof Under Highway Traffic Act Form of Questions to Jury Contributory Negligence +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theodore Beach Sr.

Appellant (defendant)

Theodore Beach Jr.

Appellant (defendant)

Robert J. Healey

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal Following Trial Under Fatal Accidents Act (motor Vehicle Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court After Trial Judgment and Court of Appeal Order for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence properly submitted to the jury to support a verdict for the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the form of questions put to the jury was correct given statutory onus on the driver to disprove negligence
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the trial verdict and ordering a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence properly submitted to the jury on which they could reasonably find no negligence on the part of the driver and contributory negligence by the deceased; therefore the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial and the trial judgment dismissing the action is restored. Additionally, the correct form for posing the negligence question to the jury where statutory onus rests on the driver is that set out in Newell v. Acme Farmers Dairy Ltd.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored with costs throughout.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment at the trial restored with costs throughout.