Gray v. Cotic

Gray v. Cotic

Because the parties, with the trial judge's approval, agreed before trial to admit liability and damages and to submit only a single narrowly worded question on causation to the jury, the issue of foreseeability was effectively resolved by that agreement and the trial properly focused on causation; the appellant cannot reopen the foreseeability issue on appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1983] 2 SCR 2
Parties
Appellant (administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Jose Izquierdo, Deceased): Michael Ross Gray; Respondent (administratrix of the Estate of Nediljko Cotic, Deceased): Filomena Cotic
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Torts Fatal Accidents Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Foreseeability, Causation, Thin Skull Rule, Suicide as Damage, Jury Instructions
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Wrongful Death Foreseeability Causation Thin Skull Rule Suicide as Damage Jury Instructions

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ross Gray

Appellant (administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Jose Izquierdo, Deceased)

Filomena Cotic

Respondent (administratrix of the Estate of Nediljko Cotic, Deceased)

Procedural Posture

Torts Fatal Accidents Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on foreseeability of suicide
  2. 2 Whether foreseeability of suicide was subsumed by the parties' agreed single question on causation
  3. 3 Interaction between the foreseeability principle (Wagon Mound) and the thin skull rule in wrongful death claims under the Fatal Accidents Act

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties, with the trial judge's approval, agreed before trial to admit liability and damages and to submit only a single narrowly worded question on causation to the jury, the issue of foreseeability was effectively resolved by that agreement and the trial properly focused on causation; the appellant cannot reopen the foreseeability issue on appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment below for the respondent for $76,000 (as agreed) upheld, with costs and directions for apportionment of funds.