Ottawa Brick & Terra Cotta Co. Ltd. v. Marsh

Ottawa Brick & Terra Cotta Co. Ltd. v. Marsh

Given the trial judge’s factual findings that the defendant driver signalled and edged left and that the plaintiff driver failed to observe the outstretched hand, flashing rear light and movement toward the centre, the Supreme Court restored the trial judgment: the plaintiff driver’s failure to keep a proper lookout...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1940] SCR 392
Parties
Defendant Owner: Ottawa Brick & Terra Cotta Co. Ltd.; Defendant Driver: James Kelso; Plaintiff: John Marsh
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 1940
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario); Cross Appeal by Plaintiff
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of defendants; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care When Passing, Left Turn Obligations, Apportionment of Fault, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
Source Language
english
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Negligence Statutory Interpretation Duty of Care When Passing Left Turn Obligations Apportionment of Fault Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence

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

Ottawa Brick & Terra Cotta Co. Ltd.

Defendant Owner

James Kelso

Defendant Driver

John Marsh

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario); Cross Appeal by Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff driver’s failure to keep lookout was sole proximate cause of collision
  2. 2 Whether defendant driver breached Highway Traffic Act ss.39(1)(c),(d) and s.12(1)(b) when veering left to turn
  3. 3 Whether evidence of plaintiff driver’s beer consumption (and related hearsay) was admissible and improperly affected findings

Ratio Decidendi

Given the trial judge’s factual findings that the defendant driver signalled and edged left and that the plaintiff driver failed to observe the outstretched hand, flashing rear light and movement toward the centre, the Supreme Court restored the trial judgment: the plaintiff driver’s failure to keep a proper lookout was the sole proximate cause and the defendants were not materially negligent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of defendants; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Restore trial judgment: plaintiff's action dismissed and defendant's counterclaim allowed
  • Costs to appellants (defendants) throughout