Fredericks v. MacDougall Estate et al., 2002 NBCA 51
Judge | Drapeau, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (New Brunswick) |
Case Date | June 24, 2002 |
Jurisdiction | New Brunswick |
Citations | 2002 NBCA 51;(2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (CA) |
Fredericks v. MacDougall Estate (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (CA);
251 R.N.-B.(2e) 212; 654 A.P.R. 212
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2002] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.001
Janet Leigh Fredericks and Darren Fredericks (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Howard A. Spalding, Q.C., as Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Stewart MacDougall, deceased, and William J. Feeney and Walter S. Feeney and W.J. Feeney & Sons (defendants/respondents)
(186/01/CA; 2002 NBCA 51)
Indexed As: Fredericks v. MacDougall Estate et al.
New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Drapeau, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A.
June 24, 2002.
Summary:
Fredericks was involved in a head-on collision with MacDougall. Both had been trying to pass tractor-trailers which were in front of them. Fredericks was badly hurt and MacDougall was killed. Fredericks sued MacDougall's estate et al. The drivers and owners of the tractor-trailers were added as third parties. The only issue was liability.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 244 N.B.R.(2d) 171; 634 A.P.R. 171, held that the conduct of MacDougall and Fredericks contributed equally to the cause of the accident. Fredericks appealed. The MacDougall estate cross-appealed.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.
Torts - Topic 376
Negligence - Motor vehicle - Standard of care of driver - Keeping a proper lookout - Fredericks was involved in a head-on collision with MacDougall - Both had been trying to pass tractor-trailers - Fredericks was badly hurt - MacDougall was killed - There were three lanes - Vehicles travelling east, as MacDougall was, could pass using the centre lane - A sign advised motorists to yield the centre lane to opposing traffic - This eastbound passing lane continued for 776 m then the highway markings changed, indicating that eastbound motorists could no longer use the centre lane to pass (but westbound motorists could) - MacDougall continued in the centre lane for 85 m beyond where his passing lane ended - Fredericks, who was westbound, allegedly pulled out to look, saw nothing, pulled back into her lane, then pulled out again, accelerated and collided with MacDougall - Fredericks argued that, even if MacDougall was already in the centre lane when Fredericks pulled out, the accident was still entirely MacDougall's fault because he no longer had a right to be in that lane - The trial judge held that MacDougall and Fredericks were equally at fault - Fredericks should have been aware that MacDougall was in the centre lane - She had a sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident by not pulling out to pass when she did - MacDougall was negligent in attempting to pass two tractor-trailers given his limited right to use the centre lane - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed Fredericks' appeal and the MacDougall estate's cross-appeal.
Torts - Topic 405
Negligence - Motor vehicle - Rules of the road - Passing - General - [See Torts - Topic 376 ].
Cases Noticed:
Gallant v. Thibodeau (1998), 206 N.B.R.(2d) 336; 526 A.P.R. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].
Doyle v. Grant (1999), 211 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 539 A.P.R. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Teed v. Langlais (1999), 218 N.B.R.(2d) 318; 558 A.P.R. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Savoie v. Bas-Caraquet (Village) (1999), 219 N.B.R.(2d) 397; 561 A.P.R. 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Lajoie et al. v. Morin (1999), 220 N.B.R.(2d) 60; 565 A.P.R. 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Godin v. Premier Salon International Inc. et al. (2000), 227 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 583 A.P.R. 195 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2001), 240 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 622 A.P.R. 202; 270 N.R. 195 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].
McAllister v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc. (2000), 228 N.B.R.(2d) 230; 588 A.P.R. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Gamblin v. O'Donnell et al. (2001), 244 N.B.R.(2d) 102; 634 A.P.R. 102; 207 D.L.R.(4th) 469 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Day & Ross Inc. v. Randall et al. (2001), 236 N.B.R.(2d) 317; 611 A.P.R. 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Chuchmuch et al. v. Perry (2001), 236 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 611 A.P.R. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers' Association et al. (2001), 238 N.B.R.(2d) 112; 617 A.P.R. 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Comeau v. Ouellette, [2001] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Comeau v. Saint John Regional Hospital et al. (2001), 244 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 634 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Robichaud v. Savoie et al., [2001] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 46 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Brunswick Data Inc. v. New Brunswick, [2001] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Counsel:
Robert L. Kenny, Q.C., for the appellants;
John D. Harper, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard on June 24, 2002, before Drapeau, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment orally on that date.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tower v. Tower et al., 2010 NBCA 64
...repeatedly applied that standard of review to findings of fault in motor-vehicle accident cases. See Fredericks v. MacDougall and Feeney , 2002 NBCA 51, where the cases on point are listed in paragraph 3. "Section 5 of the Contributory Negligence Act , as interpreted in the jurisprudence em......
-
Arsenault v. Belanger, (2002) 254 N.B.R.(2d) 353 (CA)
...Gallant v. Thibodeau (1998), 206 N.B.R.(2d) 336; 526 A.P.R. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13]. Fredericks v. MacDougall Estate et al. (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 212; 654 A.P.R. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15]. Doyle v. Grant (1999), 211 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 539 A.P.R. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15]. ......
-
St-Pierre v. LeQuang, (2005) 291 N.B.R.(2d) 276 (CA)
...applied that standard of review to findings of fault in motor-vehicle accident cases. See Fredericks v. MacDougall Estate et al. (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (C.A.), where the cases on point are listed in paragraph 3." [5] Courts have, on numerous occasions, found that the occupier of a comme......
-
Jacob v. Roy, [2006] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 165 (CA)
...repeatedly applied that standard of review to findings of fault in motor-vehicle accident cases. See Fredericks v. MacDougall and Feeney , 2002 NBCA 51, where the cases on point are listed in paragraph 3." [4] The trial judge's findings in respect of the primary facts are not the produ......
-
Tower v. Tower et al., 2010 NBCA 64
...repeatedly applied that standard of review to findings of fault in motor-vehicle accident cases. See Fredericks v. MacDougall and Feeney , 2002 NBCA 51, where the cases on point are listed in paragraph 3. "Section 5 of the Contributory Negligence Act , as interpreted in the jurisprudence em......
-
Arsenault v. Belanger, (2002) 254 N.B.R.(2d) 353 (CA)
...Gallant v. Thibodeau (1998), 206 N.B.R.(2d) 336; 526 A.P.R. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13]. Fredericks v. MacDougall Estate et al. (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 212; 654 A.P.R. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15]. Doyle v. Grant (1999), 211 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 539 A.P.R. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15]. ......
-
St-Pierre v. LeQuang, (2005) 291 N.B.R.(2d) 276 (CA)
...applied that standard of review to findings of fault in motor-vehicle accident cases. See Fredericks v. MacDougall Estate et al. (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (C.A.), where the cases on point are listed in paragraph 3." [5] Courts have, on numerous occasions, found that the occupier of a comme......
-
Jacob v. Roy, [2006] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 165 (CA)
...repeatedly applied that standard of review to findings of fault in motor-vehicle accident cases. See Fredericks v. MacDougall and Feeney , 2002 NBCA 51, where the cases on point are listed in paragraph 3." [4] The trial judge's findings in respect of the primary facts are not the produ......