Mamczasz et al. v. Bruens et al.

Mamczasz et al. v. Bruens et al.

No statutory breach was established under ss.42 or 46 as to the rear packer; the trial judge's factual finding that the construction area and packers were adequately lighted was supported by the evidence; defendants were not negligent in failing to give adequate warning; accordingly the Appellate Division erred and the appeal is allowed, restoring the trial judgment.

Citation
[1964] SCR 260
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Mike Mamczasz; Appellant (defendant): C. Mamczasz; Appellant (defendant): Mamczasz Construction; Appellant (defendant): Irving Bablitz; Appellant (defendant): John McBride; Respondent (plaintiff): Olive Bruens
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Personal Injury) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Alberta Appellate Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored
Legal Topics
Lighting Requirements, Warning Devices, Apportionment of Liability, Train of Vehicles
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Negligence Statutory Interpretation Lighting Requirements Warning Devices Apportionment of Liability Train of Vehicles

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

Parties

Mike Mamczasz

Appellant (defendant)

C. Mamczasz

Appellant (defendant)

Mamczasz Construction

Appellant (defendant)

Irving Bablitz

Appellant (defendant)

John McBride

Appellant (defendant)

Olive Bruens

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Personal Injury) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Alberta Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached statutory duty under ss.42 and 46 of The Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act regarding lighting of stationary road construction equipment
  2. 2 Whether defendants were negligent in failing to give adequate warning of the presence of a stationary packer on the highway
  3. 3 Whether appellate apportionment of liability (2/3 defendants, 1/3 plaintiff) was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

No statutory breach was established under ss.42 or 46 as to the rear packer; the trial judge's factual finding that the construction area and packers were adequately lighted was supported by the evidence; defendants were not negligent in failing to give adequate warning; accordingly the Appellate Division erred and the appeal is allowed, restoring the trial judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of trial judge restored