Dupéré v. Montreal Tramways Ltd.

Dupéré v. Montreal Tramways Ltd.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of King’s Bench order for a new trial because the trial judge’s charge was unsatisfactory: it risked withdrawing the issue of common fault, misdirected the jury as to the use of annuity tables, and failed to properly instruct on an applicable municipal by-law; the exceptions...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1932] SCR 120
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Philias Dupéré; Defendant/respondent: Montreal Tramways Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 1931
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Personal Injury (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec (judgment Ordering New Trial)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the Court of King’s Bench order granting a new trial is affirmed.
Legal Topics
Jury Charge, Misdirection, Common Fault, Annuity Tables, New Trial, Exceptions to Charge, Municipal by Law
Source Language
english
Tort Civil Procedure Appeal Jury Charge Misdirection Common Fault Annuity Tables New Trial +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philias Dupéré

Plaintiff/appellant

Montreal Tramways Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Personal Injury (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec (judgment Ordering New Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge misdirected jury on doctrine of common fault
  2. 2 Whether trial judge misdirected jury on use of annuity tables in assessing damages
  3. 3 Whether objections/exceptions to the charge were taken in the manner required by art. 498 C.C.P.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of King’s Bench order for a new trial because the trial judge’s charge was unsatisfactory: it risked withdrawing the issue of common fault, misdirected the jury as to the use of annuity tables, and failed to properly instruct on an applicable municipal by-law; the exceptions recorded in the minutes/stenographic report were sufficient or, alternatively, the Court exercised its discretionary power to order a new trial given the substantial prejudice and the overall unsatisfactory trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; the Court of King’s Bench order granting a new trial is affirmed.

Orders

  • New trial ordered (order of Court of King’s Bench affirmed)
  • Costs of this appeal awarded to respondent but payment suspended until after new trial; respondent may set off those costs against any verdict for the plaintiff