Hutcheon v. Storey

Hutcheon v. Storey

The Supreme Court restored the trial judgment because the jury's findings were supported by evidence and should not be disturbed by the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal's reasons did not establish a legal basis for a new trial and its order was appealable to the Supreme Court under the statute, so the new trial order was set aside and the trial judgment for the infant plaintiff reinstated.

Citation
[1935] SCR 677
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Stuart Milne Hutcheon (infant) by his next friend Ethel Hutcheon; Plaintiff/appellant: Ethel Hutcheon; Defendant/respondent: Taylor Storey
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 1935
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored in favour of infant plaintiff; Court of Appeal order for new trial set aside; jurisdictional motion to quash dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, New Trial, Jury Verdict Deference, Appealability Under Statute, Damages Assessment
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Civil Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Negligence New Trial Jury Verdict Deference Appealability Under Statute +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Milne Hutcheon (infant) by his next friend Ethel Hutcheon

Plaintiff/appellant

Ethel Hutcheon

Plaintiff/appellant

Taylor Storey

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal properly ordered a new trial on the facts
  2. 2 Whether the jury verdict was supported by evidence and should be disturbed on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal's order was a discretionary order not appealable under s.38 of the Supreme Court Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court restored the trial judgment because the jury's findings were supported by evidence and should not be disturbed by the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal's reasons did not establish a legal basis for a new trial and its order was appealable to the Supreme Court under the statute, so the new trial order was set aside and the trial judgment for the infant plaintiff reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored in favour of infant plaintiff; Court of Appeal order for new trial set aside; jurisdictional motion to quash dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment of trial restored: $14,330.25 awarded to infant plaintiff to be paid into court to his credit as per judgment
  • Order of Court of Appeal setting aside trial judgment and directing new trial set aside