Nadeau et Bernard c. Gareau

Nadeau et Bernard c. Gareau

The Highway Victims Indemnity Act s.3 does not eliminate the defence of contributory negligence; on the facts the Court found both driver and pedestrian were at fault and reduced the respondent's recovery by 50 percent to reflect the victim's contributory negligence.

Citation
[1967] RCS 209
Parties
Appellant (owner): Paul Yvon Nadeau; Appellant (driver): Jean Bernard; Respondent (plaintiff): Dame Éliane Gareau
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied to attribute 50% contributory negligence to the deceased and to reduce the award accordingly.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Liability of Vehicle Owner and Driver, Interpretation of Indemnity Statute, Duties of Pedestrians and Drivers
Source Language
French
Tort Automobile Law Statutory Interpretation Road Traffic Law Contributory Negligence Liability of Vehicle Owner and Driver Interpretation of Indemnity Statute Duties of Pedestrians and Drivers

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Yvon Nadeau

Appellant (owner)

Jean Bernard

Appellant (driver)

Dame Éliane Gareau

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act bars the defence of contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether the driver or the pedestrian (or both) were at fault on the facts
  3. 3 How Highway Code s.48(2) allocates duties and right of way between pedestrian and driver

Ratio Decidendi

The Highway Victims Indemnity Act s.3 does not eliminate the defence of contributory negligence; on the facts the Court found both driver and pedestrian were at fault and reduced the respondent's recovery by 50 percent to reflect the victim's contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied to attribute 50% contributory negligence to the deceased and to reduce the award accordingly.

Orders

  • Modify judgment to reduce damages by 50 percent to reflect contributory negligence of the deceased
  • Appeal allowed in part with costs in this Court and in the Court of Queen's Bench, if claimed