Cahoon v. Franks

Cahoon v. Franks

The amendments adding claims for personal injury did not set up a new cause of action; Brunsden v. Humphrey is not authoritative in Canada for splitting a single negligent act into separate causes of action for person and property, and therefore the post‑limitation amendments were permissible and the orders allowing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1967] SCR 455
Parties
Defendant, Appellant: Samuel D. Cahoon; Plaintiff, Respondent: Arthur H. Franks
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Motor Vehicle Collision (negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Amendment of Pleadings, Cause of Action, Limitation Period
Source Language
english
Tort Motor Vehicle Law Civil Procedure Statute of Limitations Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Cause of Action Limitation Period

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel D. Cahoon

Defendant, Appellant

Arthur H. Franks

Plaintiff, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Motor Vehicle Collision (negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments adding a claim for personal injuries after the statutory limitation period set out in s.131(1) constituted a new cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the precedent in Brunsden v. Humphrey requires that damage to person and property arising from the same negligent act be treated as separate causes of action
  3. 3 Interpretation and application of s.131(1) of The Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act, 1955 R.S.A., c.356 to post‑limitation amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments adding claims for personal injury did not set up a new cause of action; Brunsden v. Humphrey is not authoritative in Canada for splitting a single negligent act into separate causes of action for person and property, and therefore the post‑limitation amendments were permissible and the orders allowing them were upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Orders of Haddad D.C.J. and Dechene J. permitting amendment of the statement of claim and transfer to the Supreme Court were upheld.