Foley v. Marcoux

Foley v. Marcoux

The father was liable because he committed a fault of omission by failing to exercise proper supervision and control over his son, who had standing permission to use the car and a history of unauthorized use; this established negligence under Civil Code art.1053 and, therefore, the owner is also liable under the Motor Vehicles Act s.53 presumption. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1957] SCR 650
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Richard Foley; Respondent (plaintiff): Ovila Marcoux
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 1957
Procedural Posture
Family Law Tort (motor Vehicle Personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench affirmed; Rand J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Parental Liability, Negligence, Minor's Use of Vehicle, Civil Code Arts 1053 1054, Motor Vehicles Act S.53, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Family Law Tort Civil Liability Motor Vehicle Law Parental Liability Negligence Minor's Use of Vehicle Civil Code Arts 1053 1054 +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Foley

Appellant (defendant)

Ovila Marcoux

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Tort (motor Vehicle Personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a father is civilly liable for injuries caused by his minor son driving the father's car with permission
  2. 2 Whether liability arises under Civil Code art.1054 (presumed parental liability) or under art.1053 (liability for negligence in permitting use) when minority is not alleged
  3. 3 Whether Motor Vehicles Act s.53 creates a presumption of liability against the owner

Ratio Decidendi

The father was liable because he committed a fault of omission by failing to exercise proper supervision and control over his son, who had standing permission to use the car and a history of unauthorized use; this established negligence under Civil Code art.1053 and, therefore, the owner is also liable under the Motor Vehicles Act s.53 presumption. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench affirmed; Rand J. dissenting.

Orders

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