Lévesque v. Comeau et al.

Lévesque v. Comeau et al.

Majority held that the appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the accident caused the plaintiff’s nerve deafness because medical evidence left trauma as only one of several equally possible causes and the plaintiff’s failure to produce treating Montreal physicians justified an adverse inference; therefore causation was not established and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1970] SCR 1010
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Lola Lévesque; Plaintiff Appellant: Georges Lévesque; Defendant Respondent: Martin Comeau; Defendant Respondent: Alma Lévesque
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1970
Procedural Posture
Tort — Negligence — Personal Injury / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); dissent by Martland and Ritchie JJ.
Legal Topics
Causation, Motor Vehicle Collision, Nerve Deafness, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof, Adverse Inference for Non‑production of Witnesses
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Personal Injury Causation Motor Vehicle Collision Nerve Deafness Expert Evidence Burden of Proof +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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lola Lévesque

Plaintiff Appellant

Georges Lévesque

Plaintiff Appellant

Martin Comeau

Defendant Respondent

Alma Lévesque

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort — Negligence — Personal Injury / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s nerve deafness
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff’s failure to call or produce treating Montreal doctors justified an adverse inference
  3. 3 Whether appellate court should overturn concurrent findings of fact of trial and appeal courts

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the accident caused the plaintiff’s nerve deafness because medical evidence left trauma as only one of several equally possible causes and the plaintiff’s failure to produce treating Montreal physicians justified an adverse inference; therefore causation was not established and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); dissent by Martland and Ritchie JJ.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Provisional assessment of damages for deafness at $25,000 confirmed