Oliver Blais Co. Ltd. v. Yachuk

Oliver Blais Co. Ltd. v. Yachuk

The trial judge's findings that the defendant's agent's conduct and the infant's conduct could both constitute negligence were not plainly wrong and, where multiple parties' fault contributed to loss, the Negligence Act requires apportionment of damages; consequential claims (the father's expenditures) arising from the same event are similarly subject to apportionment rather than treated as wholly joint and several against the infant.

Citation
[1946] SCR 1
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Oliver Blais Company Limited; Plaintiff (infant)/respondent: William Yachuk; Plaintiff (next Friend)/respondent: Tony Yachuk
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 1945
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment Under Negligence Act, Sale of Dangerous Substances to Minors, Regulatory Compliance (gasoline Handling Act, Regulation 39), Novus Actus Interveniens/last Clear Chance, Capacity and Standard of Care for Children
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Statutory Interpretation Contributory Negligence Apportionment Under Negligence Act Sale of Dangerous Substances to Minors Regulatory Compliance (gasoline Handling Act, Regulation 39) Novus Actus Interveniens/last Clear Chance +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Blais Company Limited

Defendant/appellant

William Yachuk

Plaintiff (infant)/respondent

Tony Yachuk

Plaintiff (next Friend)/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant was negligent in selling gasoline to a nine year old and whether that negligence was a proximate cause of injury
  2. 2 Whether the infant plaintiff was contributorily negligent and whether that negligence was 'ultimate' or a novus actus interveniens
  3. 3 Whether damages should be apportioned under the Negligence Act and whether apportionment applies to the father's consequential claim

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings that the defendant's agent's conduct and the infant's conduct could both constitute negligence were not plainly wrong and, where multiple parties' fault contributed to loss, the Negligence Act requires apportionment of damages; consequential claims (the father's expenditures) arising from the same event are similarly subject to apportionment rather than treated as wholly joint and several against the infant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of trial judge restored: infant plaintiff awarded 25% of assessed damages