Haase v. Pedro

Haase v. Pedro
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1971-02-01
Report
[1971] SCR 669
Judges
Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Hall, Emmett Matthew; Laskin, Bora
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Motor vehicles
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Haase v. Pedro, [1971] S.C.R. 669
Date: 1971-02-01
Norbert Helmut Haase (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
Armando Pedro (Defendant) Respondent.
1970: December 3, 4; 1971: February 1.
Present: Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Hall and Laskin JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Motor vehicles—Collision—Majority of Court of Appeal holding that jury’s finding of contributory negligence not warranted by evidence—Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada.
APPEAL by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, allowing an appeal from a judgment of Aikins J., sitting with a jury, and dismissing the plaintiff’s action for damages for personal injuries. Appeal dismissed.
J. Sopinka, for the plaintiff, appellant.
H.J. Grey, Q.C., for the defendant, respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARTLAND J.—This action was brought by the appellant against the respondent, claiming damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of a collision which occurred on July 15, 1967, when the motor vehicles operated by the appellant and the respondent collided on a highway in British Columbia between Terrace and Kitimat. The case was tried before a jury, which found the appellant to be 75 per cent responsible and the respondent 25 per cent responsible for the collision. Total damages were assessed at $154,249.30. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, by a majority, held that, keeping in mind the principles applicable on an appeal from a jury verdict, as stated by Duff C.J., in McCannell v. McLean[1], the finding of the jury of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent was not reasonably warranted by the evidence and could not stand. From this judgment the appellant has appealed to this Court. I am in agreement with the reasons given by Tysoe J.A. and by Robertson J.A., who formed the majority in the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitor for the plaintiff, appellant: Robert D. Ross, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the defendant, respondent: Harper, Gilmour, Grey & Co., Vancouver.
[1] [1937] S.C.R. 341 at 343.