Widgery v. Hebert

Widgery v. Hebert

The claim is dismissed because the Claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendants' son caused the damage and any verbal promise by the Defendants would be gratuitous and unenforceable absent a legal duty, so no legal liability attached to the Defendants.

Citation
2014 NSSM 61
Parties
Claimant: Richard Widgery; Claimant: Susan Widgery; Defendant: Brian Hebert; Defendant: Noreen Hebert
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Evidence (balance of Probabilities), Vicarious Liability, Enforceability of Gratuitous Promises, Neighbour Disputes
Source Language
English
Tort Property Damage Vicarious Liability Contract (gratuitous Promise) Negligence Evidence (balance of Probabilities) Enforceability of Gratuitous Promises Neighbour Disputes

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Widgery

Claimant

Susan Widgery

Claimant

Brian Hebert

Defendant

Noreen Hebert

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable for a broken window allegedly caused by their son
  2. 2 Whether the defendants made an enforceable promise to pay for the damage
  3. 3 Whether the defendants could be vicariously liable for their teenage son's actions

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the Claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendants' son caused the damage and any verbal promise by the Defendants would be gratuitous and unenforceable absent a legal duty, so no legal liability attached to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed