Swartz Bros. Ltd. v. Wills

Swartz Bros. Ltd. v. Wills

Section 21 of the Highway Act plainly requires the driver approaching an intercommunicating highway to keep a lookout and yield to traffic approaching from the right; the respondent failed this statutory duty and his neglect was the direct cause of the collision, so the trial judge's dismissal of the action was correct and the Court of Appeal's award was reversed.

Citation
[1935] SCR 628
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Swartz Bros. Ltd.; Appellant/defendant: Another; Respondent/plaintiff: August Wills
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 1935
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Collision, Tort) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial court restored; respondent's action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Negligence, Duty of Care, Intersection Collisions, Damages
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Tort Statutory Interpretation Highway Law Right of Way Negligence Duty of Care Intersection Collisions +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Swartz Bros. Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Another

Appellant/defendant

August Wills

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Collision, Tort) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff violated the statutory right‑of‑way under s.21 of The Highway Act (B.C.)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant exercised proper care despite having the right of way
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's failure to keep a lookout was the direct cause of the collision

Ratio Decidendi

Section 21 of the Highway Act plainly requires the driver approaching an intercommunicating highway to keep a lookout and yield to traffic approaching from the right; the respondent failed this statutory duty and his neglect was the direct cause of the collision, so the trial judge's dismissal of the action was correct and the Court of Appeal's award was reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial court restored; respondent's action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Judgment of Fisher J. restored.