Morales v. Laguardia

Morales v. Laguardia

The motion judge correctly concluded, applying the sudden emergency principle and assessing the evidence, that Franchetto’s split‑second reactions were reasonable and that no properly instructed jury could reasonably find him negligent or a legal cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; therefore there was no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment dismissing the action against Franchetto was appropriate.

Citation
2024 ONCA 869
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Steve Morales; Plaintiff (appellant): Sonia Morales; Plaintiff (appellant): Marcela Legaspi; Plaintiff (appellant): Alexander Legaspi (minor) by his Litigation Guardian Steve Morales; Defendant (respondent): Ramses Laguardia; Defendant (respondent): Marilyn Brito; Defendant (respondent): Phillip Franchetto
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Motor Vehicle Tort/negligence Action / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (rule 20) in Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment upholding dismissal of claims against Franchetto affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Standard of Care, Causation, Sudden Emergency Doctrine, Expert Evidence on Summary Judgment
Source Language
English
Torts Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Summary Judgment Standard of Care Causation Sudden Emergency Doctrine +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steve Morales

Plaintiff (appellant)

Sonia Morales

Plaintiff (appellant)

Marcela Legaspi

Plaintiff (appellant)

Alexander Legaspi (minor) by his Litigation Guardian Steve Morales

Plaintiff (appellant)

Ramses Laguardia

Defendant (respondent)

Marilyn Brito

Defendant (respondent)

Phillip Franchetto

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Motor Vehicle Tort/negligence Action / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (rule 20) in Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment motion should have been dismissed or whether there was a genuine issue for trial
  2. 2 Whether defendant Franchetto breached the standard of care of an ordinary driver
  3. 3 Whether Franchetto’s conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly concluded, applying the sudden emergency principle and assessing the evidence, that Franchetto’s split‑second reactions were reasonable and that no properly instructed jury could reasonably find him negligent or a legal cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; therefore there was no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment dismissing the action against Franchetto was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment upholding dismissal of claims against Franchetto affirmed

Orders

  • Respondent entitled to costs of the appeal fixed at $14,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST