Vinnal v. R.

Vinnal v. R.

The Department of Highways was negligent in the construction and maintenance of the curve (adverse superelevation, compound curve and failure to remove gravel and provide adequate speed control), the driver was also negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and not seeing warning signs, both negligent causes contributed and responsibility is to be apportioned equally under The Negligence Act s.2, reducing the award by half to $11,043.08; Highway Traffic Act s.106 did not bar the passenger27s claim or shift the onus here.

Citation
[1970] SCR 502
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Armilde Vinnal; Defendant Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Ontario represented by the Minister of Highways for the Province of Ontario; Defendant (discontinued): Renate Sorra
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 1970
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed in part; liability apportioned 50/50; damages fixed at $11,043.08 in favour of appellant; costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Design and Maintenance, Duty to Warn, Apportionment of Liability, Passenger Injury Claims
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Road Design and Maintenance Duty to Warn Apportionment of Liability Passenger Injury Claims

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armilde Vinnal

Plaintiff Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Ontario represented by the Minister of Highways for the Province of Ontario

Defendant Respondent

Renate Sorra

Defendant (discontinued)

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department of Highways was negligent in construction and maintenance of the curve (adverse superelevation, compound curve, gravel)
  2. 2 Whether the driver failed to keep proper lookout and whether that failure was a cause of the accident
  3. 3 Whether the highway authority fulfilled its duty to warn by signage

Ratio Decidendi

The Department of Highways was negligent in the construction and maintenance of the curve (adverse superelevation, compound curve and failure to remove gravel and provide adequate speed control), the driver was also negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and not seeing warning signs, both negligent causes contributed and responsibility is to be apportioned equally under The Negligence Act s.2, reducing the award by half to $11,043.08; Highway Traffic Act s.106 did not bar the passenger27s claim or shift the onus here.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed in part; liability apportioned 50/50; damages fixed at $11,043.08 in favour of appellant; costs to appellant.

Orders

  • Award plaintiff damages in the sum of 11043.08 CAD
  • Costs awarded to the appellant in this Court and in the Courts below