MacDonald v. City of Vancouver

MacDonald v. City of Vancouver

There was no evidence to support the jury's finding that the parents were being transported in the ordinary course of the City's business within the meaning of s.82(b); the transport was an exceptional accommodation in the circumstances and thus the statutory immunity applies in the absence of gross negligence, so the City is not liable.

Citation
[1953] 2 SCR 170
Parties
Plaintiff (infant): John George MacDonald; Plaintiff (infant): Donald Arthur MacDonald; Plaintiff and Next Friend: John Louis MacDonald; Defendant (appellant): City of Vancouver; Defendant (appellant): Jack Pinch
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1953
Procedural Posture
Wrongful Death / Motor Vehicle Negligence Under the Families Compensation Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Passenger Exemption (statutory), Gross Negligence Standard, Scope of Municipal Business, Families Compensation Act Claims
Source Language
English
Tort Municipal Law Motor Vehicle Law Statutory Interpretation Vicarious Liability Passenger Exemption (statutory) Gross Negligence Standard Scope of Municipal Business +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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John George MacDonald

Plaintiff (infant)

Donald Arthur MacDonald

Plaintiff (infant)

John Louis MacDonald

Plaintiff and Next Friend

City of Vancouver

Defendant (appellant)

Jack Pinch

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Wrongful Death / Motor Vehicle Negligence Under the Families Compensation Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.82(b) of the Motor-vehicle Act excludes liability where the owner is a person to whose business the transportation of passengers is normally incidental
  2. 2 Whether the City of Vancouver was a person to whose business the transportation of passengers was normally incidental
  3. 3 Whether the deceased was being transported in the ordinary course of the transporter's business

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence to support the jury's finding that the parents were being transported in the ordinary course of the City's business within the meaning of s.82(b); the transport was an exceptional accommodation in the circumstances and thus the statutory immunity applies in the absence of gross negligence, so the City is not liable.