Kerr v. Cummings

Kerr v. Cummings

The appellant failed to prove the statutory threshold of 'gross negligence' (interpreted as 'very great negligence') required by s.82 of the Motor Vehicles Act; mere occurrence of the accident and surrounding marks did not establish that threshold and res ipsa loquitur could not supply it; therefore the action was barred and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1953] 1 SCR 147
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Charles Kerr; Respondent/defendant: Alexander Cummings
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 1953
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Gratuitous Passenger, Gross Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Motor Vehicles Act S.82, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicles Law Negligence Statutory Interpretation Gratuitous Passenger Gross Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur Motor Vehicles Act S.82 +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Kerr

Appellant/plaintiff

Alexander Cummings

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a gratuitous passenger may recover for injury absent gross negligence by the driver as required by s.82 of the Motor Vehicles Act
  2. 2 What standard/degree of negligence constitutes 'gross negligence' under s.82
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raised a presumption of very great negligence from the mere occurrence of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove the statutory threshold of 'gross negligence' (interpreted as 'very great negligence') required by s.82 of the Motor Vehicles Act; mere occurrence of the accident and surrounding marks did not establish that threshold and res ipsa loquitur could not supply it; therefore the action was barred and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.