Davis v. Lambe, (1971) 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 33 (NFCA)

• Judge: Puddester, Higgins and Mifflin, JJ.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: March 26, 1971
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1971), 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 33 (NFCA)

Davis v. Lambe (1971), 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 33 (NFCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Davis v. Lambe

Indexed As: Davis v. Lambe

Newfoundland Supreme Court

On Appeal

Puddester, Higgins and Mifflin, JJ.

March 26, 1971.

Summary:

This appeal arose out of the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries resulting from a motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff was one of four people injured in the collision. All four brought actions individually against the defendant for damages for personal injuries and gave the required notice to Judgment Recovery (Nfld.) Ltd. The plaintiff recovered judgment first in the amount of $35,000.00 and made an application to Judgment Recovery (Nfld.) Ltd. for payment. The fund limits for a single accident were $35,000.00. Judgment recovery (Nfld.) Ltd. made an application to the supreme Court for directions. Furlong, C.J., in a judgment reported (1973), 3 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1, held that payment must be made to the plaintiff notwithstanding that the fund limits were thereby exhausted. The other claimants appealed. The appeal court allowed the appeal.

The appeal court held that the fund should be proportionately distributed among all four claimants. The appeal court stated that the purpose of the fund was to compensate all victims of a motor vehicle accident, not just the one who perfected judgment and applied first.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 1350

Unsatisfied judgment fund - Amounts recoverable from fund - Priority of claims which exceeded fund limits claimants - Four claimants to fund with total claims over limits of the fund - One claimant recovered judgment for an amount equalling the fund limits and made an application for payment to the fund before the other claimants - Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that the fund limits should be proportionately distributed among the four claimants.

Cases Noticed:

McKinnon et al. v. Sheridan and Harrison, [1951] 1 D.L.R. 849, folld. [para. 21].

Klebanoff v. Prince, [1949] O.W.N. 130 (C.A.), folld. [paras. 22 and 23].

Thomas et al. v. Frank et al., [1950] 1 W.W.R. 947 (Alta. S.C.), folld. [paras. 22 and 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, S. Nfld. 1962, c. 82, sect. 107.

Judgment Recovery (Nfld.) Ltd. Act, S. Nfld. 1960, c. 24, sect. 3 [paras. 18, 19].

Counsel:

T. O'Reilly, for the applicants, Baird, Fowler and Fowler;

Raymond Halley, for the applicant, Jane Davis;

R.E. Fagan, Q.C., for Judgment Recovery.