Sterling Trusts Corpn. v. Postma et al.

Sterling Trusts Corpn. v. Postma et al.

A new trial was required because the critical factual issue—whether the truck’s tail‑light was lighted—could not be reliably resolved from the record and the trial judge had misdirected himself on the burden of proof; if on retrial the tail‑light is found unlit and that breach is an effective cause of the collision...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1965] SCR 324
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Sterling Trusts Corporation, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Dorothy Margaret Brown; Plaintiff Appellant: William John Brown; Defendant Respondent: Henry Postma; Defendant Respondent: Olive Russell Little, Executrix of the Estate of Fred A. Little; Defendant Respondent: Frederick H. Little; Deceased Defendant (driver): Fred A. Little (deceased)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Motor Vehicle Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Disposition Ordering New Trial on Specified Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgments below set aside except finding Postma liable; new trial ordered on specified issues; costs allocated between parties as directed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Burden of Proof, Vehicle Equipment Regulations, Apportionment of Fault, New Trial
Source Language
english
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Statutory Duty Negligence Causation Burden of Proof Vehicle Equipment Regulations Apportionment of Fault +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Sterling Trusts Corporation, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Dorothy Margaret Brown

Plaintiff Appellant

William John Brown

Plaintiff Appellant

Henry Postma

Defendant Respondent

Olive Russell Little, Executrix of the Estate of Fred A. Little

Defendant Respondent

Frederick H. Little

Defendant Respondent

Fred A. Little (deceased)

Deceased Defendant (driver)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Motor Vehicle Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Disposition Ordering New Trial on Specified Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the tail‑light on the truck lighted at the relevant time?
  2. 2 If unlit, was the failure to have the tail‑light lighted an effective cause of the collision?
  3. 3 If the failure was an effective cause, are the Littles liable for damages and in what proportion relative to Postma?

Ratio Decidendi

A new trial was required because the critical factual issue—whether the truck’s tail‑light was lighted—could not be reliably resolved from the record and the trial judge had misdirected himself on the burden of proof; if on retrial the tail‑light is found unlit and that breach is an effective cause of the collision the respondents are prima facie liable (driver’s knowledge not required to establish prima facie liability); therefore judgments below were set aside except insofar as they fixed Postma liable and a new trial was ordered on liability of the Littles, apportionment, and quantum of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgments below set aside except finding Postma liable; new trial ordered on specified issues; costs allocated between parties as directed.

Orders

  • Set aside judgments of trial court and Court of Appeal except insofar as they found Henry Postma liable
  • Order a new trial on: (i) whether the respondents (Olive Russell Little as executrix and Frederick H. Little) are liable to the appellants; (ii) if liable, the degrees of fault between the respondents and Henry Postma; (iii) the quantum of the appellants’ damages