Studer v. Cowper

Studer v. Cowper

Section 141(2) of the Saskatchewan Vehicles Act must be read as providing two separate alternatives—'gross negligence' and 'wilful and wanton misconduct'—neither of which necessarily imports the elements of criminal negligence; 'gross negligence' can mean very great negligence; classification is a factual question for the jury; therefore the jury verdict finding gross negligence supported by specified particulars must stand and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1951] SCR 450
Parties
Appellant Defendant (driver): Raymond N. Studer; Appellant Defendant (owner): Gerald L. Studer; Appellant Defendant: The Canadian National Railways; Respondent Plaintiff (infant): Bernice Avis Cowper; Respondent Plaintiff (next Friend): Frederick Cowper
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 1951
Procedural Posture
Tort Motor Vehicle (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed
Legal Topics
Gratuitous Passenger Liability, Gross Negligence, Wilful and Wanton Misconduct, Criminal Negligence Standard, Jury Findings and Particulars, Interpretation of S.141(2) of the Vehicles Act (sask.)
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicle Law Negligence Statutory Interpretation Gratuitous Passenger Liability Gross Negligence Wilful and Wanton Misconduct Criminal Negligence Standard +2 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond N. Studer

Appellant Defendant (driver)

Gerald L. Studer

Appellant Defendant (owner)

The Canadian National Railways

Appellant Defendant

Bernice Avis Cowper

Respondent Plaintiff (infant)

Frederick Cowper

Respondent Plaintiff (next Friend)

Procedural Posture

Tort Motor Vehicle (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'gross negligence' and 'wilful and wanton misconduct' as used in s.141(2) are equivalent or connote criminal negligence
  2. 2 Whether the jury was required to find reckless disregard (criminal negligence) to establish liability under s.141(2)
  3. 3 Whether the jury's omission of a pleaded particular (reckless disregard) defeated the verdict for gross negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Section 141(2) of the Saskatchewan Vehicles Act must be read as providing two separate alternatives—'gross negligence' and 'wilful and wanton misconduct'—neither of which necessarily imports the elements of criminal negligence; 'gross negligence' can mean very great negligence; classification is a factual question for the jury; therefore the jury verdict finding gross negligence supported by specified particulars must stand and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for respondents affirmed