Mingarelli v. Mezzapella / Mingarelli v. Montreal Tramways Co.

Mingarelli v. Mezzapella / Mingarelli v. Montreal Tramways Co.

The statutory subrogation in s.7(3) is partial and confined to amounts paid by the employer for losses the employer is legally liable to compensate under the Act and to recoveries from the tortfeasor for those losses; therefore the trial judge's apportionment of total damages between employer (subrogated claimant) and employee was proper and is affirmed.

Citation
[1959] SCR 43
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Alfio Mingarelli; Plaintiff Respondent: Montreal Tramways Company; Plaintiff Respondent: Guiseppe Mezzapella
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 1958
Procedural Posture
Torts; Workmen's Compensation Subrogation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Subrogation, Apportionment of Damages, Statutory Interpretation, Employer Subrogation Vs. Injured Workman's Claim
Source Language
English
Torts Workers' Compensation Civil Procedure Subrogation Apportionment of Damages Statutory Interpretation Employer Subrogation Vs. Injured Workman's Claim

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfio Mingarelli

Defendant Appellant

Montreal Tramways Company

Plaintiff Respondent

Guiseppe Mezzapella

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Torts; Workmen's Compensation Subrogation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory subrogation under s.7(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act operates in respect of all heads of damages recovered by the injured workman
  2. 2 Whether damages must be allocated without regard to their headings or limited to losses for which the employer is liable under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's apportionment, accepted by both plaintiffs, can be challenged by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory subrogation in s.7(3) is partial and confined to amounts paid by the employer for losses the employer is legally liable to compensate under the Act and to recoveries from the tortfeasor for those losses; therefore the trial judge's apportionment of total damages between employer (subrogated claimant) and employee was proper and is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, affirmed