Landreville et al. v. Brown

Landreville et al. v. Brown

Appeal allowed and new trial ordered because the trial judge materially misdirected the jury on contributory negligence and the statutory onus, posed a misleading form of question to the jury, and the verdict (including an excessive damages award) was not supported by the evidence such that a properly instructed jury could not reasonably have reached it.

Citation
[1941] SCR 473
Parties
Defendant Appellant (owner): Mederic Landreville; Defendant Appellant (driver/employee): Arthur Gardner; Plaintiff Respondent: Elmyes Brown
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1941
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; New Trial Ordered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court and affirmation by Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Onus of Proof, Jury Directions, Damages, Highway Traffic Act
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Negligence Civil Procedure Contributory Negligence Onus of Proof Jury Directions Damages +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mederic Landreville

Defendant Appellant (owner)

Arthur Gardner

Defendant Appellant (driver/employee)

Elmyes Brown

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on contributory negligence
  2. 2 Proper allocation and degree of onus under Highway Traffic Act s.48
  3. 3 Whether the form of questions to the jury was misleading

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed and new trial ordered because the trial judge materially misdirected the jury on contributory negligence and the statutory onus, posed a misleading form of question to the jury, and the verdict (including an excessive damages award) was not supported by the evidence such that a properly instructed jury could not reasonably have reached it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court and affirmation by Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Trial judgment and Court of Appeal order set aside