F.W. Argue Ltd. et al. v. Howe

F.W. Argue Ltd. et al. v. Howe

Section 147(1) does not bar the action because the damage was caused by the operation of the pump mounted on a truck while the vehicle was stationary — the loss was not occasioned by the motor vehicle qua vehicle; the sole causative negligence was that of the deliveryman Hemphill and of F.W. Argue Ltd., and the plaintiff's alleged deficiencies did not cause or contribute to the damage, so plaintiff recovers in full.

Citation
[1969] SCR 354
Parties
Appellant/defendant: F.W. Argue Limited; Appellant/defendant: Clifford Hemphill; Respondent/plaintiff: Robert Bingham Howe
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 1968
Procedural Posture
Torts – Negligence and Limitation Issues / Appeal and Cross Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Limitation Period S.147(1) Highway Traffic Act, Use of Motor Vehicle Vs. Auxiliary Equipment, Apportionment of Fault Under Negligence Act
Source Language
English
Torts Insurance/highway Traffic Statute Interpretation Limitation of Actions Vicarious Liability Negligence Limitation Period S.147(1) Highway Traffic Act Use of Motor Vehicle Vs. Auxiliary Equipment Apportionment of Fault Under Negligence Act

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F.W. Argue Limited

Appellant/defendant

Clifford Hemphill

Appellant/defendant

Robert Bingham Howe

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Torts – Negligence and Limitation Issues / Appeal and Cross Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.147(1) Highway Traffic Act bars claims where pump mounted on truck caused damage while vehicle stationary
  2. 2 Whether damage was occasioned by a motor vehicle or by auxiliary equipment operated while vehicle was stationary
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence reduced recovery under The Negligence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 147(1) does not bar the action because the damage was caused by the operation of the pump mounted on a truck while the vehicle was stationary — the loss was not occasioned by the motor vehicle qua vehicle; the sole causative negligence was that of the deliveryman Hemphill and of F.W. Argue Ltd., and the plaintiff's alleged deficiencies did not cause or contribute to the damage, so plaintiff recovers in full.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and cross‑appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment varied: Robert Bingham Howe to recover full amount of his loss to be ascertained on reference to the Local Master, together with costs throughout