Hébert v. Lamothe

Hébert v. Lamothe

Both drivers were negligent: the minor driver for excessive speed and inexperience in fog, and the tractor driver/owner for venturing onto a main road in fog with inadequate rear lighting in breach of safety standards; liability is therefore apportioned equally (50/50) and the tractor owner is also liable under s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act.

Citation
[1974] SCR 1181
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Dame Sylvio Hébert; Plaintiff Appellant: Sylvio Hébert; Defendant Respondent: Conrad Lamothe; Defendant Respondent: Dame Napoléon Lamothe
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury Motor Vehicle) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; judgments below reversed in part; responsibility apportioned equally between drivers; damages assessed by this Court.
Legal Topics
Rear End Collision, Liability of Vehicle Owner for Minor's Driving (mandator), Speed and Visibility, Failure to Equip Rear Lights, Apportionment of Liability, Assessment of Damages, Highway Victims Indemnity Act S.3, Quebec Highway Code S.29
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Road Traffic Law Statutory Liability Rear End Collision Liability of Vehicle Owner for Minor's Driving (mandator) Speed and Visibility Failure to Equip Rear Lights +4 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dame Sylvio Hébert

Plaintiff Appellant

Sylvio Hébert

Plaintiff Appellant

Conrad Lamothe

Defendant Respondent

Dame Napoléon Lamothe

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury Motor Vehicle) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minor driver’s excessive speed was the sole cause of the collision
  2. 2 Whether the tractor’s inadequate or improperly coloured rear lighting constituted negligence
  3. 3 Whether the tractor owner is liable under Highway Victims Indemnity Act s.3

Ratio Decidendi

Both drivers were negligent: the minor driver for excessive speed and inexperience in fog, and the tractor driver/owner for venturing onto a main road in fog with inadequate rear lighting in breach of safety standards; liability is therefore apportioned equally (50/50) and the tractor owner is also liable under s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; judgments below reversed in part; responsibility apportioned equally between drivers; damages assessed by this Court.

Orders

  • Appellants' appeals allowed in part; judgments of Superior Court and Court of Appeal reversed in part.
  • Dame Sylvio Hébert awarded total damages of 17036.45 CAD, of which she may recover 50% (8518.225 -> ordered 8518.22 CAD) jointly and severally from Conrad Lamothe and Dame Napoléon Lamothe, with interest and costs.