Hébert v. Fortier

Hébert v. Fortier

The motorcyclist's unlawful passing on the right in breach of s.40(4) was the main cause of the accident; the left-turning motorist bore a smaller share of fault for failing to ensure the way was clear and for unreasonably assuming compliance with traffic rules; apportionment of liability as determined by the Court of Appeal (80% to Hébert, 20% to Fortier) is upheld.

Citation
[1970] SCR 772
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Marcel Hébert; Defendant Respondent: Elzéar Fortier; Plaintiff Respondent: Dame Cécile St-Hilaire Dillon
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1970
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Apportionment of Liability, Statutory Interpretation of Traffic Rules
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicle Law Traffic Regulation Civil Liability Negligence Duty of Care Apportionment of Liability Statutory Interpretation of Traffic Rules

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

Parties

Marcel Hébert

Defendant Appellant

Elzéar Fortier

Defendant Respondent

Dame Cécile St-Hilaire Dillon

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motorcyclist unlawfully overtook and passed on the right in breach of s.40(4) of the Highway Code
  2. 2 Whether the motorist making a left turn was negligent in failing to ensure his way was clear before turning
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of fault between the two drivers

Ratio Decidendi

The motorcyclist's unlawful passing on the right in breach of s.40(4) was the main cause of the accident; the left-turning motorist bore a smaller share of fault for failing to ensure the way was clear and for unreasonably assuming compliance with traffic rules; apportionment of liability as determined by the Court of Appeal (80% to Hébert, 20% to Fortier) is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs