Parent and Belair v. Vachon

Parent and Belair v. Vachon

The evidence properly before the courts established that although St‑Onge was primarily negligent in failing to stop, Belair, despite having right of way, failed to take reasonable precautions when the danger was reasonably apparent; the trial court and Court of Queen's Bench rightly found concurrent negligence by Belair and the Supreme Court will not disturb those factual findings, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1958] SCR 703
Parties
Defendants/appellants: Edouard Parent; Defendants/appellants: Roland Belair; Plaintiff/respondent: Gerard Vachon; Defendant (not Proceeded): Claude St‑Onge
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 1958
Procedural Posture
Tort Motor Vehicle Collision (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed; action maintained
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Duty of Driver, Anticipation of Danger, Admissibility of Evidence (art. 340 C.p.c.), Standard of Review on Appeal
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Tort Negligence Evidence Civil Procedure Right of Way Duty of Driver Anticipation of Danger +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edouard Parent

Defendants/appellants

Roland Belair

Defendants/appellants

Gerard Vachon

Plaintiff/respondent

Claude St‑Onge

Defendant (not Proceeded)

Procedural Posture

Tort Motor Vehicle Collision (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a driver who has the right of way is relieved from the duty to take reasonable precautions when danger is reasonably apparent
  2. 2 Whether the taxi driver (Belair) breached the duty of care by failing to anticipate and avoid the collision
  3. 3 Whether proffered cross‑examination evidence objected to under art. 340 Code of Civil Procedure was admissible and material

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence properly before the courts established that although St‑Onge was primarily negligent in failing to stop, Belair, despite having right of way, failed to take reasonable precautions when the danger was reasonably apparent; the trial court and Court of Queen's Bench rightly found concurrent negligence by Belair and the Supreme Court will not disturb those factual findings, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed; action maintained

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench (affirming trial judgment) affirmed and action maintained