Sterling Trusts Corpn. v. Postma et al., [1965] S.C.R. 324 (1964)

Extract

---

Sterling Trusts Corpn. v. Postma et al., [1965] S.C.R. 324 (1964)

Supreme Court of Canada

Sterling Trusts Corpn. v. Postma et al., [1965] S.C.R. 324

Date: 1964-11-04

Sterling Trusts Corporation, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Dorothy Margaret Brown, Deceased, and William John Brown (Plaintiffs) Appellants;

and

Henry Postma, Fred A. Little and Frederick H. Little (Defendants) Respondents.

Sterling Trusts Corporation, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Dorothy Margaret Brown, Deceased, and William John Brown (Plaintiffs) Appellants;

and

Henry Postma, Olive Russell Little, Executrix of the Estate of Fred A. Little, and Frederick H. Little (Defendants) Respondents.

1964: March 9, 10; 1964: November 4.

Present: Cartwright, Judson, Ritchie, Hall and Spence JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Motor vehicles-Negligence-Truck involved in collision between two automobiles-Owner and driver of truck found jointly and severally liable with driver of one of the automobiles-Driver of automobile alone held liable on appeal-New trial ordered by Supreme Court on certain questions.

As a result of a collision between an automobile owned and operated by the defendant P and an automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff B, the plaintiff's wife was killed and B suffered grave and permanent injuries. P had veered to the left in order to avoid hitting a truck which was proceeding in front of him and as a consequence he collided with B's automobile which was approaching in the opposite direction. The trial judge found L Jr. as owner and L Sr. as driver of the truck jointly and severally liable with P for the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. As between the defendants, the trial judge attributed one third to the negligence of L Sr. and two thirds to that of P. An appeal by O L, as executrix of the estate of L Sr., and L Jr. was allowed and so, in the result, P was held alone liable for the damages as fixed by the trial judgment. P did not appear upon the appeal to the Court of Appeal nor upon the further appeal to this Court.

The grounds on which it was argued that negligence should be imputed to the L's were (i) that the tail-light of the truck was not lighted, (ii) that there was not on the rear of the truck a reflector as required by s. 40(2) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, and (iii) that the driver of the truck was negligent in slowing down and attempting to make a left hand turn without adequate warning and without ascertaining that this movement could be made in safety. As to the second ground, the trial judge found as a fact that there was no reflector on the L truck but, having found that the tail-light was not lighted and that this was an effective cause of the collision, he did not deal with the question whether the lack of a reflector was also an effective cause.

As to the first ground, three questions were raised for decision, (i) was the tail-light on the L truck lighted?, (ii) if not, was the failure to have it lighted an effective cause of the collision? and, (iii) if the second question was answered in the affirmative did the result follow that the respondents were liable for the damages caused to the appellants.

The trial judge answer...

See the full content of this document

If you are already a vLex customer, access here

---