Crosby v. O’Reilly et al.

Crosby v. O’Reilly et al.

Loss of the amenities of life is not a separate head of damage in a survival action brought by a deceased's personal representative because it would duplicate the recognised claim for shortened expectation of life; appellate courts should not legally fix a precise upper limit for jury awards but trial judges must give guidance to avoid excessive verdicts; accordingly the appellate reduction to $10,000 was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1975] 2 SCR 381
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Douglas R. Crosby, Administrator of the Estate of Douglas Kim Crosby; Defendant Respondent: Victor Vincent O'Reilly; Defendant Respondent: Gulf Oil Company Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1974
Procedural Posture
Tort Survival Action Under Trustee Act (wrongful Death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Appellate Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Loss of Expectation of Life, Loss of Amenities, Survival Actions, Jury Directions, Quantum of Damages, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Torts Damages Estates Civil Procedure Loss of Expectation of Life Loss of Amenities Survival Actions Jury Directions +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas R. Crosby, Administrator of the Estate of Douglas Kim Crosby

Plaintiff Appellant

Victor Vincent O'Reilly

Defendant Respondent

Gulf Oil Company Ltd.

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Survival Action Under Trustee Act (wrongful Death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loss of amenities is a separate head of damage in a survival action by a deceased's estate
  2. 2 Whether a jury verdict for loss of expectation of life can be limited as a matter of law by an appellate court (upper limit guidance)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider separate heads of damage and proper guidance on quantum

Ratio Decidendi

Loss of the amenities of life is not a separate head of damage in a survival action brought by a deceased's personal representative because it would duplicate the recognised claim for shortened expectation of life; appellate courts should not legally fix a precise upper limit for jury awards but trial judges must give guidance to avoid excessive verdicts; accordingly the appellate reduction to $10,000 was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order of Alberta Appellate Division reducing jury award to $10,000 affirmed.