Annapolis County District School Board v. Marshall

Annapolis County District School Board v. Marshall

The trial judge did not misdirect the jury: references to Motor Vehicle Act right-of-way provisions served to delineate the standard of care owed by the driver and did not invite a finding of contributory negligence against the four-year-old plaintiff; the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial on that basis; appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed.

Citation
2012 SCC 27
Parties
Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal: Annapolis County District School Board; Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal: Douglas Ernest Feener; Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal: Johnathan Lee Marshall (represented by Vaughan Caldwell, Guardian)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Torts — Negligence; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order after trial with jury restored.
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Contributory Negligence, Jury Instructions, Statutory Right of Way, Duty to Children, Motor Vehicle Act S.248
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Standard of Care Contributory Negligence Jury Instructions Statutory Right of Way +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annapolis County District School Board

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal

Douglas Ernest Feener

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal

Johnathan Lee Marshall (represented by Vaughan Caldwell, Guardian)

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Torts — Negligence; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by referring to Motor Vehicle Act right-of-way provisions in a way that invited the jury to treat a four-year-old plaintiff like an adult
  2. 2 Whether statutory right-of-way provisions inform driver standard of care or only pedestrian contributory negligence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury about the special duty of care owed by motorists where children are present

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not misdirect the jury: references to Motor Vehicle Act right-of-way provisions served to delineate the standard of care owed by the driver and did not invite a finding of contributory negligence against the four-year-old plaintiff; the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial on that basis; appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order after trial with jury restored.

Orders

  • Allow appeal and restore the trial judge and jury verdict of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
  • Dismiss cross-appeal without costs