Holland et al. v. Hallonquist

Holland et al. v. Hallonquist

Because the pleaded facts showed the defendant was both owner and driver and the passenger's injuries were alleged to result from the operation of the vehicle, the action fell within s.71 of the Motor-vehicle Act and the plaintiff was required to prove gross negligence by the driver contributing to the injury; ordinary negligence in maintenance could not succeed under those facts.

Citation
[1968] SCR 130
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Donna Marie Holland (infant); Plaintiff Appellant: Frank Holland (next friend and plaintiff); Defendant Respondent: Richard Hallonquist
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 1967
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Passenger Liability, Owner Liability, Gross Negligence, Motor Vehicle Act S.71
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Negligence Statutory Interpretation Passenger Liability Owner Liability Gross Negligence Motor Vehicle Act S.71

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donna Marie Holland (infant)

Plaintiff Appellant

Frank Holland (next friend and plaintiff)

Plaintiff Appellant

Richard Hallonquist

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a passenger may maintain a claim against the owner for negligent maintenance despite s.71 of the Motor-vehicle Act
  2. 2 Whether gross negligence must be established where the owner is also the driver
  3. 3 Whether negligent maintenance per se gives rise to a cause of action against an owner

Ratio Decidendi

Because the pleaded facts showed the defendant was both owner and driver and the passenger's injuries were alleged to result from the operation of the vehicle, the action fell within s.71 of the Motor-vehicle Act and the plaintiff was required to prove gross negligence by the driver contributing to the injury; ordinary negligence in maintenance could not succeed under those facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Question of law answered in the negative
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.