Coso v. Poulos

Coso v. Poulos

The Court restored the trial judge’s finding of sole liability because the Court of Appeal misread the trial judge’s recitation as a factual finding; respondent breached statutory and common law duties by overtaking a slowed truck and failing to slow in circumstances where a pedestrian had the right-of-way; given the permanent injuries (including phlebitis) and reduced earning capacity the Court found the Court of Appeal’s $12,000 general damage award inordinately low and increased it to $30,000.

Citation
[1969] SCR 757
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ivan Coso; Defendant/respondent: Alexander Poulos
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 1969
Procedural Posture
Tort Motor Vehicle Personal Injury (appeal) / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Finding of 20% contributory negligence reversed; trial judge’s sole-liability finding restored; general damages increased to $30,000 and special damages affirmed.
Legal Topics
Crosswalk Rights, Statutory Duty to Yield (s.169), Overtaking a Slowed Vehicle, Apportionment of Fault, Assessment of General Damages, Causation of Injury (phlebitis)
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Personal Injury Damages Contributory Negligence Crosswalk Rights Statutory Duty to Yield (s.169) Overtaking a Slowed Vehicle +3 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Coso

Plaintiff/appellant

Alexander Poulos

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Motor Vehicle Personal Injury (appeal) / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was solely liable or whether the appellant was contributorily negligent
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding 20% contributory negligence
  3. 3 Whether the award of general damages by the Court of Appeal was inordinately low and warranted increase

Ratio Decidendi

The Court restored the trial judge’s finding of sole liability because the Court of Appeal misread the trial judge’s recitation as a factual finding; respondent breached statutory and common law duties by overtaking a slowed truck and failing to slow in circumstances where a pedestrian had the right-of-way; given the permanent injuries (including phlebitis) and reduced earning capacity the Court found the Court of Appeal’s $12,000 general damage award inordinately low and increased it to $30,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Finding of 20% contributory negligence reversed; trial judge’s sole-liability finding restored; general damages increased to $30,000 and special damages affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Find that defendant/respondent solely liable (reverse Court of Appeal apportionment)