Bruce v. McIntyre

Bruce v. McIntyre

Where both drivers were negligent and no clear line could be drawn between their respective negligence the negligence is to be apportioned under s.5 of the Negligence Act and the parties are equally at fault; Davies v. Mann does not displace that result where the parked car was inadequately lit and the driver could have avoided the danger by ordinary precautions.

Citation
[1955] SCR 251
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Jean Bruce (infant) by Roy Bruce her next friend; Appellant/plaintiff: Roy Bruce; Respondent/defendant: Donald W. McIntyre
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1955
Procedural Posture
Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision (tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Fault, Parking and Lighting Obligations, Causation, Application of Statutory Apportionment (negligence Act S.5)
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Fault Parking and Lighting Obligations Causation Application of Statutory Apportionment (negligence Act S.5)

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Bruce (infant) by Roy Bruce her next friend

Appellant/plaintiff

Roy Bruce

Appellant/plaintiff

Donald W. McIntyre

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision (tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rule in Davies v. Mann (last clear chance) applies so as to make defendant solely liable
  2. 2 Whether appellant breached Highway Traffic Act lighting/parking requirements and whether that breach contributed to collision
  3. 3 Whether a clear line can be drawn between the negligence of the parties for purposes of causation and apportionment

Ratio Decidendi

Where both drivers were negligent and no clear line could be drawn between their respective negligence the negligence is to be apportioned under s.5 of the Negligence Act and the parties are equally at fault; Davies v. Mann does not displace that result where the parked car was inadequately lit and the driver could have avoided the danger by ordinary precautions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Parties found equally at fault and apportionment under Negligence Act s.5 applied