Hughson v. Doe
The appeal was dismissed because the jury reasonably could find no negligence by John Doe or by the store; the duty to keep premises reasonably safe did not include a duty to investigate the appellant's accident; hearsay and prior-occurrence evidence were handled within acceptable bounds and did not warrant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42754
- Parties
- Appellant: Ruth Hughson; Appellant: Linda DaSILVA; Respondent: John Doe; Respondent: The Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada Limited cob as Food Basics
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 October 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal for Ontario Decision)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Duty to Investigate, Standard of Care, Hearsay Admissibility, Jury Instructions, Admissions, Prior Occurrences Evidence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ruth Hughson
Appellant
Linda DaSILVA
Appellant
John Doe
Respondent
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada Limited cob as Food Basics
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal for Ontario Decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether John Doe was negligent
- 2 Whether the store (respondent) was negligent in maintaining premises and in failing to have a policy for express aisle conduct
- 3 Admissibility and use of hearsay statement in investigation report
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the jury reasonably could find no negligence by John Doe or by the store; the duty to keep premises reasonably safe did not include a duty to investigate the appellant's accident; hearsay and prior-occurrence evidence were handled within acceptable bounds and did not warrant overturning the verdict.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondent fixed at $6,000 all in if demanded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Hughson v. Doe Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-10-26 Docket numbers C42754 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Simmons, Janet M.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20061025 DOCKET: C42754 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: RUTH HUGHSON and LINDA DaSILVA (Appellants) – and – JOHN DOE (Respondent) and THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF CANADA LIMITED cob as FOOD BASICS (Respondent) BEFORE: GOUDGE, SIMMONS AND LANG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Melvyn L. Solmon and James P. McReynolds for the appellants Chris Blom for the respondent The Great Atlantic and Pacific Co. of Canada HEARD & ENDORSED: October 18, 2006 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Mary Anne Sanderson of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 12, 2004. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises a number of issues which we will address in turn. [2] We think it was open to the jury to find no negligence by John Doe. Moreover counsel agreed that this option be put to the jury and the trial judge charged accordingly. [3] Second, it was also open to the jury to conclude that the respondent was not negligent. In the circumstances the jury could properly have concluded that the respondent kept the store reasonable safe even though it did not have a specific policy advising staff how to get customers to back up in the express aisle. [4] Third, we think the trial judge dealt adequately with the evidence about the frequency of previous occurrences by telling the jury to disregard it. [5] Fourth, it cannot be said that the fact of making the hearsay statement in the investigation report is irrelevant. It was admissible, and the jury was properly instructed to use it for its truth. [6] Fifth, in the circumstances we do not view the respondent as having withdrawn an admission about the precise location of John Doe. [7] Lastly, in the circumstances, we essentially agree with the trial judge’s reasons for finding no duty to investigate. In this court, the appellant argues that this obligation is a manifestation of the respondent’s duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. However in our view the appellant’s inability to sue John Doe cannot be said to flow from the condition of the respondent’s premises. The duty on the respondent to keep those premises reasonably safe does not stretch to an obligation to investigate the appellant’s accident. [8] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $6,000 all in if demanded.