Galaske v. O'Donnell et al., (1994) 43 B.C.A.C. 37 (SCC)

• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 37 (SCC)

Galaske v. O'Donnell (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 37 (SCC);

    69 W.A.C. 37

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Karl Thomas Galaske, an infant suing by his Guardian ad Litem, Elizabeth Moser v. Erich Stauffer, Florence Horvath, Columcille O'Donnell and Bourgoin Contracting Ltd.

Karl Thomas Galaske, an infant suing by his Guardian ad Litem, Elizabeth Moser v. Erich Stauffer, Florence Horvath, Columcille O'Donnell, Bourgoin Contracting Ltd., and Mala Galaske as Representative ad Litem of the Estate of Peter Helmut Galaske, Deceased

(23109)

Indexed As: Galaske v. O'Donnell et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ.

April 14, 1994.

Summary:

An eight year old passenger was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident. He sued the driver, inter alia, for damages on the basis of breach of a statutory duty to ensure that he used a seat belt.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that the driver was not liable. The passenger appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 13 B.C.A.C. 143; 24 W.A.C. 143; 67 B.C.L.R.(2d) 190, dismissed the appeal. The passenger appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major and Sopinka, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal.

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the driver of a motor vehicle owes a duty of care to his passengers to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable injuries - All passengers have a duty to wear seat belts -When the passenger is under 16, the driver has a duty, quite apart from any statutory obligation, to take reasonable steps to ensure that the child wears a seat belt - The driver's duty may be shared with another person, such as a parent - When a parent is present, the extent of the diver's duty to a child passenger will vary with the circumstances.

Torts - Topic 89

Negligence - Duty of care - To children -[See Torts - Topic 77 ].

Torts - Topic 277

Negligence - Breach of statute - Effect of - The Motor Vehicle Act, s. 217(6), required the driver to ensure that child passengers wore seat belts - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the statutory requirement is subsumed in the general law of negligence - The provision is a public indication that a driver's failure to ensure that child passengers wear seat belts constitutes unreasonable conduct - Further, it indicates that such a failure demonstrates conduct that falls below the standard required by the community and is thus negligent - Breach of the provision is not conclusive of liability, but it provides support for finding that a driver has a duty of care to take all reasonable steps to see that seat belts are worn by children - See paragraphs 26 to 29.

Torts - Topic 392.1

Negligence - Motor vehicle - Standard of care of driver - Re use of safety equipment by children - An eight year old boy and his father were passengers in an automobile driven by a close friend - They did not wear seat belts - The boy was ejected from the car in a collision and rendered a paraplegic - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the driver had a duty to ensure that the child wore his seat belt that was not negated by the presence of the parent - Determination of the extent of the driver's responsibility in the particular circumstances was remitted to the trial judge, where the standard of care is a mixed question of law and fact for the trial judge to determine.

Cases Noticed:

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; [1983] 3 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 7].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 12].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 385; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689; 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350, refd to. [para. 12].

Hall v. Hebert, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 159; 152 N.R. 321; 26 B.C.A.C. 161; 44 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 12].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562; [1932] All E.R. Rep. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 12].

Froom v. Butcher, [1975] 3 All E.R. 520 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Jackson v. Millar, [1972] 2 O.R. 197 (H.C.), revd. [1973] 1 O.R. 399 (C.A.), revd. [1976] 1 S.C.R. 225; 4 N.R. 17, refd to. [para. 17].

Dodgson v. Topolinsky (1980), 125 D.L.R.(3d) 177 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Pugliese v. Macrillo Estate (1989), 67 O.R.(2d) 641 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Thurmeier v. Bray (1990), 83 Sask.R. 183 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Ohlheiser and Ohlheiser v. Cummings, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 282; 4 Sask.R. 402 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Keller v. Kautz (1982), 20 Sask.R. 420 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Rinas v. Regina (City) and Bidochka's Estate (1983), 26 Sask.R. 132 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Berube v. Vanest, [1991] O.J. No. 1633 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 17].

Bulmer v. Horsman (1987), 82 N.B.R.(2d) 107; 208 A.P.R. 107; 42 C.C.L.T. 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Schon v. Hodgins, [1988] O.J. No. 743 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Gervais v. Richard (1984), 48 O.R.(2d) 191 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Stamp v. Ontario (1984), 47 O.R.(2d) 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Beaver et al. v. Crowe et al. (1974), 18 N.S.R.(2d) 562; 20 A.P.R. 562; 49 D.L.R.(3d) 114 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Berrigan v. Wallace (1988), 82 N.S.R.(2d) 395; 207 A.P.R. 395; 47 D.L.R.(4th) 752 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Holstein v. Berzolla, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 159; 10 Sask.R. 242 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Ducharme and Holben v. Davies and Rogoschewsky (1981), 12 Sask.R. 137 (Q.B.), affd. in part [1984] 1 W.W.R. 699; 29 Sask.R. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Shaw Estate and Shaw v. Roemer and Smith Transport Co. (1982), 51 N.S.R. (2d) 229; 102 A.P.R. 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Yuan v. Farstad (1967), 62 W.W.R.(N.S.) 645 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Earl v. Bourdon (1975), 65 D.L.R.(3d) 646 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Gagnon v. Beaulieu, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 702 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Aujla v. Christensen, [1992] B.C.J. No. 860 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Pharness v. Wallace, [1987] B.C.J. No. 2393 (S.C.), affd. [1989] B.C.J. No. 2112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Bentzler v. Braun (1967), 149 N.W.2d 626 (Wis.), refd to. [para. 20].

Mortensen v. Southern Pacific Co. (1966), 53 Cal. Rptr. 851 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Da Costa v. Da Costa, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1485, refd to. [para. 25].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 3 C.C.L.T. 372; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 30].

McCallion v. Dodd, [1966] N.Z.L.R. 710 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Menow v. Honsberger, [1974] S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 34].

Jordan House Ltd. v. Menow - see Menow v. Honsberger.

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186; 86 N.R. 241; 29 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Le Lievre v. Gould, [1893] 1 Q.B. 491, refd to. [para. 53].

Vincent v. Canadian National Railway, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 364; 29 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 56].

DesBrisay v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd., [1941] S.C.R. 230, refd to. [para. 57].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 59].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 211; [1991] 5 W.W.R. 389, refd to. [para. 59].

Benmax v. Austin Motor Co., [1955] A.C. 370 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60].

Warren v. Coombes (1979), 142 C.L.R. 531 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Lewis v. Todd, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 694; 34 N.R. 1; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 14 C.C.L.T. 294, refd to. [para. 61].

Migliore v. Gerard (1987), 42 D.L.R.(4th) 619 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Grain Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 7, generally [para. 27].

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 288, sect. 217(6) [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), pp. 106 [para. 55]; 310 [para. 60].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (5th Ed. 1993), generally [para. 14].

Todd, Stephen M.D., ed., The Law of Torts in New Zealand (1991), p. 280 [para. 60].

Counsel:

Romano F. Giusti, for the appellant;

Avon M. Mersey and Michael J. Sobkin, for the respondents, Erich Stauffer and Florence Horvath.

Solicitors of Record:

Giusti, Barrett & Ellan, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents, Erich Stauffer and Florence Horvath;

Heather Sadler Jenkins, Prince George, British Columbia, for the respondents, Columcille O'Donnell and Bourgoin Contracting Ltd.;

Messner & Foster, 100 Mile House, British Columbia, for the respondents, Mala Galaske and Theresa Margarette Galaske.

This appeal was heard on December 3, 1993, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On April 14, 1994, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 39;

La Forest, J. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 40 to 42;

McLachlin, J. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 43 to 47;

Major, J., dissenting, (Sopinka, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 48 to 67.