McFadden v. McGillivray

McFadden v. McGillivray

The trial judge's directions excluding the jury from considering two material allegations of negligence (excessive speed despite statutory limit and failure to have lights burning) amounted to misdirection that likely occasioned a substantial wrong or miscarriage; therefore the appropriate remedy is to allow the appeal and order a new trial.

Citation
[1940] SCR 331
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: C.H. McFadden; Respondent / Plaintiff: John R. McGillivray
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1940
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal Ordering New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Misdirection, Jury Charge, New Trial, Speed Limits, Vehicle Lighting Obligations, Substantial Wrong or Miscarriage
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Civil Procedure Misdirection Jury Charge New Trial Speed Limits +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.H. McFadden

Appellant / Defendant

John R. McGillivray

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal Ordering New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by excluding consideration of alleged excessive speed because the statutory limit was not exceeded
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by stating the plaintiff had no obligation to have lights burning under the conditions alleged
  3. 3 Whether the misdirections occasioned a substantial wrong or miscarriage warranting a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions excluding the jury from considering two material allegations of negligence (excessive speed despite statutory limit and failure to have lights burning) amounted to misdirection that likely occasioned a substantial wrong or miscarriage; therefore the appropriate remedy is to allow the appeal and order a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial ordered