R.H. Hunt and W. Mayo v. MacLeod Construction Co. et al.

R.H. Hunt and W. Mayo v. MacLeod Construction Co. et al.

Majority held that because the plaintiff's case, the defence and the counterclaim had been completed and there was no further evidence to be adduced, the trial judge properly exercised his power to grant a non-suit as to Wilson and Kumpula; the evidence was insufficient to require submission of their liability or apportionment to the jury, and the trial judgments in favour of Hunt and Mayo against MacLeod and Hajchak were therefore restored.

Citation
[1958] SCR 737
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Richard Haig Hunt; Plaintiff Appellant: Walter Mayo; Defendant Respondent; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: MacLeod Construction Company Limited; Defendant Respondent; Driver: S. Hajchak; Defendant Respondent: Gordon L. Wilson; Defendant Respondent: Waino Kumpula; Third Party: B.R. Weston
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 1958
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (negligence/motor Vehicle) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Decision on Merits
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgments of Court of Appeal set aside; judgments entered at trial in favour of Hunt and Mayo against MacLeod Construction Company Limited and S. Hajchak restored; dissent in part by Rand and Cartwright JJ.
Legal Topics
Non Suit, Apportionment of Negligence, Contribution, Jury Direction, Parking Regulation
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Law Non Suit Apportionment of Negligence Contribution Jury Direction +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Haig Hunt

Plaintiff Appellant

Walter Mayo

Plaintiff Appellant

MacLeod Construction Company Limited

Defendant Respondent; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

S. Hajchak

Defendant Respondent; Driver

Gordon L. Wilson

Defendant Respondent

Waino Kumpula

Defendant Respondent

B.R. Weston

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (negligence/motor Vehicle) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge may grant a non-suit as to some defendants at the stage after the defence and counterclaim have been put in
  2. 2 Whether the non-suit as granted to Wilson and Kumpula was proper on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the parking of vehicles violated s.43(1) Highway Traffic Act and constituted effective cause of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that because the plaintiff's case, the defence and the counterclaim had been completed and there was no further evidence to be adduced, the trial judge properly exercised his power to grant a non-suit as to Wilson and Kumpula; the evidence was insufficient to require submission of their liability or apportionment to the jury, and the trial judgments in favour of Hunt and Mayo against MacLeod and Hajchak were therefore restored.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgments of Court of Appeal set aside; judgments entered at trial in favour of Hunt and Mayo against MacLeod Construction Company Limited and S. Hajchak restored; dissent in part by Rand and Cartwright JJ.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Judgments of the Court of Appeal set aside