Pérusse v. Stafford

Pérusse v. Stafford

The appeal is dismissed because (1) s.53(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not create a presumption of owner fault in favour of a passenger in the owner's vehicle, (2) art.1054 C.C. does not apply where the accident was caused by human agency (the driver), and (3) there was no proven fault by the driver and concurrent findings of fact against the appellant were not shown to be erroneous, so the owner is not liable under art.1053 C.C.

Citation
[1928] SCR 416
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Raoul Pérusse; Respondent/defendant: Dame J. E. Stafford
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 May 1928
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Tort (negligence, Automobile) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgments below (Superior Court and Court of King's Bench, appeal side) affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Statutory Presumption of Fault, Civil Code Arts. 1053 1054
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Civil Liability Negligence Vicarious Liability Statutory Presumption of Fault Civil Code Arts. 1053 1054

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raoul Pérusse

Appellant/plaintiff

Dame J. E. Stafford

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Tort (negligence, Automobile) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.53(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act creates a rebuttable presumption of owner fault applicable to a passenger injured in the owner's vehicle
  2. 2 Whether art. 1054 C.C. (liability for damage caused by a thing in one's care) applies where the immediate cause is human agency (the driver)
  3. 3 Whether owner is vicariously liable under art. 1053 C.C. for the servant's alleged negligence and whether concurrent factual findings should be disturbed on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because (1) s.53(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not create a presumption of owner fault in favour of a passenger in the owner's vehicle, (2) art.1054 C.C. does not apply where the accident was caused by human agency (the driver), and (3) there was no proven fault by the driver and concurrent findings of fact against the appellant were not shown to be erroneous, so the owner is not liable under art.1053 C.C.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgments below (Superior Court and Court of King's Bench, appeal side) affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Action dismissed.