Derkson v. Lloyd

Derkson v. Lloyd

The Supreme Court allowed the owner’s appeal because there were no adequate grounds to reverse the trial judge’s finding that the driver’s conduct did not amount to gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct; on that basis the statutory bar applied and the trial judgment dismissing the action was restored.

Citation
[1938] SCR 315
Parties
Plaintiff: Lloyd; Defendant (driver): Milton; Defendant (owner, Appellant): Derkson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 1938
Procedural Posture
Negligence – Motor Vehicle Passenger Injury Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal; Trial Judge Dismissed Action on Motion for Non Suit
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Passenger Liability, Owner Liability, Gross Negligence, Wilful and Wanton Misconduct, Statutory Defence (the Vehicles Act S.85), Scope of Appeal
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Negligence Statutory Interpretation Passenger Liability Owner Liability Gross Negligence Wilful and Wanton Misconduct +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyd

Plaintiff

Milton

Defendant (driver)

Derkson

Defendant (owner, Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Negligence – Motor Vehicle Passenger Injury Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal; Trial Judge Dismissed Action on Motion for Non Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver’s conduct amounted to gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct
  2. 2 Whether the owner is liable under s.85 where the vehicle was stolen or wrongfully taken
  3. 3 Whether the scope of an appeal is confined to the point mentioned in reasons for granting leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the owner’s appeal because there were no adequate grounds to reverse the trial judge’s finding that the driver’s conduct did not amount to gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct; on that basis the statutory bar applied and the trial judgment dismissing the action was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment of the trial Judge restored with costs throughout
  • Cross-appeal dismissed without costs