McMillan v. Murray

McMillan v. Murray

The appellant discharged the statutory onus under s.66 by proving he exercised the care, skill and judgment reasonably required in the circumstances and that the collision was an excusable misadventure; statutory onus shifts evidentiary burden but does not alter substantive rules as to contributory negligence, which can also satisfy the defendant's burden when it materially contributes and the defendant could not by reasonable care have avoided the consequences.

Citation
[1935] SCR 572
Parties
Defendant/appellant: George D. McMillan; Plaintiff/respondent: Annie Murray
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 1935
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Negligence (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored and dismissal of plaintiff's action reinstated with costs throughout.
Legal Topics
Statutory Onus of Proof, Contributory Negligence, Burden of Proof, Standard of Care
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicles Negligence Evidence Statutory Onus of Proof Contributory Negligence Burden of Proof Standard of Care

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George D. McMillan

Defendant/appellant

Annie Murray

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Negligence (motor Vehicle) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant discharged statutory onus under s.66 of the Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and effect of such negligence on statutory onus
  3. 3 What standard of care applies to driver in circumstances of momentary glare and emergency maneuvers

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant discharged the statutory onus under s.66 by proving he exercised the care, skill and judgment reasonably required in the circumstances and that the collision was an excusable misadventure; statutory onus shifts evidentiary burden but does not alter substantive rules as to contributory negligence, which can also satisfy the defendant's burden when it materially contributes and the defendant could not by reasonable care have avoided the consequences.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored and dismissal of plaintiff's action reinstated with costs throughout.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored with costs throughout.