Theriault v. Huctwith

Theriault v. Huctwith

The statutory right-of-way in s.36(7) does not absolve a driver from the duty to exercise proper care; on the facts all three defendants were at fault and jointly and severally liable; because the appellant paid the judgment and acquired subrogation she had a personal interest which required that she be made a party to the appeal (respondents should have served notice); failure to do so deprived her of rights — appeal allowed and trial judgment restored.

Citation
[1948] SCR 86
Parties
Appellant / Defendant at Trial: Dame Marie Leontine Theriault; Respondent / Owner of Truck: H. Huctwith; Respondent / Driver of Truck: Brandon
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 1948
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Negligence Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (appeal Side), Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored in favour of original plaintiff against three defendants jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Joint and Several Liability, Subrogation, Intervention and Party Joinder, Statutory Duty Vs Common Law Duty, Apportionment of Fault, Notice of Appeal
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Civil Code Obligations Subrogation and Contribution Right of Way Joint and Several Liability Subrogation +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dame Marie Leontine Theriault

Appellant / Defendant at Trial

H. Huctwith

Respondent / Owner of Truck

Brandon

Respondent / Driver of Truck

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Negligence Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (appeal Side), Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory right-of-way (s.36(7) Quebec Motor Vehicles Act) absolves driver of duty to exercise proper care
  2. 2 Whether the three defendants were jointly and severally liable for the collision
  3. 3 Effect of payment by one joint debtor and her subrogation rights against co-debtors

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory right-of-way in s.36(7) does not absolve a driver from the duty to exercise proper care; on the facts all three defendants were at fault and jointly and severally liable; because the appellant paid the judgment and acquired subrogation she had a personal interest which required that she be made a party to the appeal (respondents should have served notice); failure to do so deprived her of rights — appeal allowed and trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored in favour of original plaintiff against three defendants jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to appellant in this Court
  • Judgment of the Superior Court (trial) restored awarding $8,500 plus interest and costs against the defendants jointly and severally