Ristow v. Wetstein

Ristow v. Wetstein

The trial judge's direction that the jury could safely disregard evidence relevant to the driver's speed and visibility was a misdirection that withdrawn vital evidence from the jury, constituting a miscarriage of justice and justifying the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial even though no objection was made at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1934] SCR 128
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Philip J. Ristow; Plaintiff/respondent: Helen Wetstein (infant); Plaintiff/respondent: Louis Wetstein; Defendant: Daniel McIntyre
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1933
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Court of Appeal order for new trial upheld.
Legal Topics
Misdirection to Jury, New Trial, Standard of Care, Evidence, Mistrial, Consent to Use of Vehicle
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Civil Procedure Misdirection to Jury New Trial Standard of Care Evidence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip J. Ristow

Defendant/appellant

Helen Wetstein (infant)

Plaintiff/respondent

Louis Wetstein

Plaintiff/respondent

Daniel McIntyre

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's direction withdrawing evidence on speed constituted misdirection
  2. 2 Whether misdirection justified ordering a new trial despite no objection at trial
  3. 3 Whether evidence supported a finding that driver was driving too fast under the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's direction that the jury could safely disregard evidence relevant to the driver's speed and visibility was a misdirection that withdrawn vital evidence from the jury, constituting a miscarriage of justice and justifying the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial even though no objection was made at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Court of Appeal order for new trial upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • New trial ordered (order of Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed)