Carter v. Van Camp

Carter v. Van Camp

Carter breached s.35(1) and thus was at fault for the collision and liable to plaintiffs; Anderson was not shown to be at fault prior to the collision and, because s.42(1) imposed an onus on him to prove the injury did not arise from his negligence or improper conduct, the evidence as presented left doubt on whether his post-collision conduct broke the causal link; accordingly Carter's liability is affirmed and plaintiffs may elect a limited new trial to determine whether Anderson is also jointly liable.

Citation
[1930] SCR 156
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ida Van Camp (infant) by Silas Ezra Van Camp (next friend); Plaintiff/appellant: Silas Ezra Van Camp; Defendant/appellant: J.E. Carter; Defendant/respondent: J.C. Anderson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 1929
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal of Carter dismissed; plaintiffs' appeal allowed in part; judgment against Carter affirmed; plaintiffs may elect within 20 days to have a new trial limited to Anderson's liability; if no election, judgment of Appellate Division stands as modified.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Novus Actus Interveniens, Onus of Proof Under Highway Traffic Act S.42, Emergency Conduct, Damages
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Negligence Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Right of Way Novus Actus Interveniens Onus of Proof Under Highway Traffic Act S.42 Emergency Conduct +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ida Van Camp (infant) by Silas Ezra Van Camp (next friend)

Plaintiff/appellant

Silas Ezra Van Camp

Plaintiff/appellant

J.E. Carter

Defendant/appellant

J.C. Anderson

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether driver whose car struck pedestrian is liable where his vehicle mounted the sidewalk after a collision between two cars
  2. 2 Whether post-collision conduct by defendant Anderson constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking causal link with initial collision
  3. 3 Application of s.35(1) Highway Traffic Act (right of way) to fault for collision

Ratio Decidendi

Carter breached s.35(1) and thus was at fault for the collision and liable to plaintiffs; Anderson was not shown to be at fault prior to the collision and, because s.42(1) imposed an onus on him to prove the injury did not arise from his negligence or improper conduct, the evidence as presented left doubt on whether his post-collision conduct broke the causal link; accordingly Carter's liability is affirmed and plaintiffs may elect a limited new trial to determine whether Anderson is also jointly liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal of Carter dismissed; plaintiffs' appeal allowed in part; judgment against Carter affirmed; plaintiffs may elect within 20 days to have a new trial limited to Anderson's liability; if no election, judgment of Appellate Division stands as modified.

Orders

  • Dismiss Carter's appeal with costs to the plaintiffs
  • Allow plaintiffs' appeal in part and confirm judgment against Carter for damages as assessed