Poole & Thompson Limited v. McNally

Poole & Thompson Limited v. McNally

The appeal was dismissed: (1) there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury's finding that the appellant's car struck the plaintiff; (2) s.65(1) places the onus on owner/driver to prove the injury did not arise through their negligence, and a finding of contributory negligence by the plaintiff would not discharge that onus; and (3) s.65(2)'s phrase "shall be deemed to be" creates a conclusive presumption of agency making the owner liable where the vehicle was driven with the owner's consent.

Citation
[1934] SCR 717
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Poole & Thompson Limited; Respondent/plaintiff: Wilfred McNally
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 1934
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence) Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (special Leave)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; trial verdict and judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
Legal Topics
Owner Liability, Onus of Proof, Contributory Negligence, Presumptions (deemed to Be)
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Negligence Statutory Interpretation Agency / Vicarious Liability Owner Liability Onus of Proof Contributory Negligence Presumptions (deemed to Be)

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poole & Thompson Limited

Appellant/defendant

Wilfred McNally

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence) Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (special Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to identify the appellant's car as the vehicle that struck the plaintiff
  2. 2 Construction and effect of s.65(1) of the Prince Edward Island Highway Traffic Act placing onus on owner/driver
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence by plaintiff, if found, would discharge the onus in s.65(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed: (1) there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury's finding that the appellant's car struck the plaintiff; (2) s.65(1) places the onus on owner/driver to prove the injury did not arise through their negligence, and a finding of contributory negligence by the plaintiff would not discharge that onus; and (3) s.65(2)'s phrase "shall be deemed to be" creates a conclusive presumption of agency making the owner liable where the vehicle was driven with the owner's consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; trial verdict and judgment for plaintiff affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; verdict and judgment of trial court awarding plaintiff $1,500 against defendants affirmed.