Boxenbaum v. Wise

Boxenbaum v. Wise

The statutory presumption in s.53(2) only attaches where the plaintiff proves the defendant's vehicle caused the loss or is factually linked to it; here the evidence established that Gignac's car struck the boy and there was no causal nexus tying the respondents' car to the injury, and in any event the respondents rebutted any presumption by showing they had the right of way, acted reasonably, and that Pelchat's illegal incursion was the sole legal cause; therefore respondents were not liable.

Citation
[1944] SCR 292
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Harry Boxenbaum; Defendant/respondent: Alexander Wise; Defendant/respondent: Issie (Izzy) Wise; Defendant/owner (appeal Pending): Phydime Gignac; Defendant/driver: Emile Pelchat
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1944
Procedural Posture
Tort Motor Vehicle Negligence / Personal Injury / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench dismissing action against respondents affirmed
Legal Topics
Presumption of Fault, Burden of Proof, Causation Nexus, Right of Way, Novus Actus Interveniens, Speed Limits
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Tort Negligence Statutory Interpretation Presumption of Fault Burden of Proof Causation Nexus Right of Way +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Boxenbaum

Plaintiff/appellant

Alexander Wise

Defendant/respondent

Issie (Izzy) Wise

Defendant/respondent

Phydime Gignac

Defendant/owner (appeal Pending)

Emile Pelchat

Defendant/driver

Procedural Posture

Tort Motor Vehicle Negligence / Personal Injury / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.53(2) presumption of fault applied against the respondents
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff proved a nexus between respondents' vehicle and the injury
  3. 3 Whether respondents rebutted the statutory presumption by showing lack of negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory presumption in s.53(2) only attaches where the plaintiff proves the defendant's vehicle caused the loss or is factually linked to it; here the evidence established that Gignac's car struck the boy and there was no causal nexus tying the respondents' car to the injury, and in any event the respondents rebutted any presumption by showing they had the right of way, acted reasonably, and that Pelchat's illegal incursion was the sole legal cause; therefore respondents were not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench dismissing action against respondents affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench dismissing action against Alexander and Issie Wise affirmed.