Stanley v. National Fruit Co. Ltd.

Stanley v. National Fruit Co. Ltd.

Majority held that a driver who, by following too close and taking a wider turning curve, drives over a portion of the street he cannot see where pedestrians habitually cross and at a speed that prevents stopping within his visible distance is negligent; that negligence was the proximate cause of injury to a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1931] SCR 60
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Isaac Stanley; Defendant Respondent: The National Fruit Company, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 November 1930
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Proximate Cause, Ultimate Negligence, Standard of Care, Obstruction of View
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Motor Vehicles Law Civil Procedure (appeal) Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Proximate Cause Ultimate Negligence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Stanley

Plaintiff Appellant

The National Fruit Company, Limited

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Torts Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the truck driver negligent in turning wider and driving without adequate view and speed to stop?
  2. 2 Was the plaintiff contributorily negligent and did any such negligence contribute to the harm?
  3. 3 Does the doctrine of "ultimate" negligence (disabling negligence anterior to plaintiff's act) require a new trial here?

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that a driver who, by following too close and taking a wider turning curve, drives over a portion of the street he cannot see where pedestrians habitually cross and at a speed that prevents stopping within his visible distance is negligent; that negligence was the proximate cause of injury to a stationary pedestrian who was not shown to be contributorily negligent, and therefore the trial judgment for plaintiff must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored.

Orders

  • Restore judgment of trial judge in favour of plaintiff
  • Appeal allowed with costs (costs here and in the Court of Appeal awarded to appellant)