Guymer v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, (1984) 61 N.S.R.(2d) 325 (TD)

• Judge: Grant, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1984), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 325 (TD)

Guymer v. Reg. of Motor Vehicles (1984), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 325 (TD);

    133 A.P.R. 325

MLB headnote and full text

Guymer v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

(S.H. No. 35215)

Indexed As: Guymer v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Trial Division

Grant, J.

January 25, 1984.

Summary:

The plaintiff pedestrian suffered personal injuries when struck by a motor vehicle. The identity of the driver who caused the accident could not be ascertained and the plaintiff commenced an action for damages against the Registrar under s. 230 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the action and found the unidentified driver negligent and 30% at fault and the plaintiff contributorily negligent and 70% at fault.

Damage Awards - Topic 59

Body injuries - Pelvis and pubic bones - 66 year old woman - Compound fracture of left leg - Partial hip dislocation - Severe fracture of pelvis, destroying support for bladder and other pelvic organs - Corrective surgery required to provide support - Considerable pain and discomfort - Future partial disability from pelvic injury - Previous degenerative spine disease - Plastic hip implanted in 1969 - Future problems expected with bladder, vagina and rectum as a result of the pelvic injury - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, awarded $60,000.00 general damages for non-pecuniary loss - See paragraphs 64 to 83.

Damages - Topic 1623

General damages - Considerations in assessing general damages - Age of injured party - A 66 year old woman was injured when struck by a motor vehicle - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the general damages awarded for nonpecuniary loss should not be less than the amount awarded to a younger person suffering the same injuries, because the determining factor in awarding damages was the quality of life affected, not life expectancy - See paragraph 80.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 1703

Unsatisfied judgment fund - Actions against unknown driver - Whether plaintiff made all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, referred to the efforts made by the plaintiff to identify an unknown driver and held that they were sufficient to comply with s. 230 (5)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 191 - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 1703

Unsatisfied judgment fund - Actions against unknown driver - Whether plaintiff made all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, discussed whether advertising for information leading to the identification of an unknown motor vehicle driver was necessary to comply with s. 230(5)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 191 - See paragraphs 29 to 32.

Torts - Topic 355

Negligence - Motor Vehicle - Pedestrians - Street or highway crossing - Non-intersection - A pedestrian was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing a street at a point 100 feet from an intersection crosswalk - The pedestrian crossed when it was unsafe to do so because of the closeness of oncoming cars - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the pedestrian was negligent and 70% at fault for failing to wait until the oncoming cars had passed or for failing to use the crosswalk - See paragraphs 39 to 53, 61.

Torts - Topic 376

Negligence - Motor vehicle - Standard of care of driver - Keeping a proper lookout - An unidentified driver struck a pedestrian crossing a street 100 feet from an intersection - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, inferred that the driver was negligent and 30% at fault for failing to see the pedestrian in time to avoid hitting her - See paragraphs 54 to 55, 62.

Torts - Topic 550

Negligence - Motor vehicle - Evidence and burden of proof - Statutory burden on owner or operator - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, explained the burden of proof on the owner or operator of a motor vehicle under s. 221(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 191 - See paragraphs 36 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

McNutt v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 496; 36 A.P.R. 496, appld. [para. 27].

Berends et al. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles and MacKay (1977), 19 N.S.R.(2d) 4; 24 A.P.R. 4, folld. [para. 29].

Lovett v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1971), 4 N.S.R.(2d) 670, refd to. [para. 3].

Haley v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles for Nova Scotia (1963), 40 D.L.R.(2d) 976, refd to. [para. 31].

Reimer and Reimer v. Penner et al., and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, [1974] 2 W.W.R. 62, refd to. [para. 31].

Feener v. McKenzie (1971), 3 N.S.R.(2d) 829, folld. [para. 37].

Bruce et al. v. McFetridge (1969), 1 N.S.R.(2d) 158, consd. [para. 58].

O'Neill v. Cosnick (1974), 19 N.S.R.(2d) 518; 24 A.P.R. 518, consd. [para. 58].

Whitman v. Moore (1978), 28 N.S.R.(2d) 631; 43 A.P.R. 631, consd. [para. 58].

MacPherson v. Campbell and MacIver (1980), 45 N.S.R.(2d) 401; 86 A.P.R. 401, consd. [para. 59].

Power v. Wampum Holdings Ltd. (1983), 59 N.S.R.(2d) 98; 125 A.P.R. 98, consd. [para. 59].

Hurshman et al. v. Tanner (1973), 13 N.S.R.(2d) 24; 9 A.P.R. 24, consd. [para. 60].

White v. Guptill (1973), 5 N.S.R.(2d) 638, refd to. [para. 60].

Chisholm v. Cameron et al. (1982), 49 N.S.R.(2d) 320; 96 A.P.R. 320, consd. [para. 79].

Hachey v. Dakin et al. (1983), 57 N.S.R.(2d) 441; 120 A.P.R. 441, consd. [para. 79].

Stein et al. v. Sobchzak et al., 16 C.C.L.T. 262, refd to. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 181, sect. 113(1), sect. 113(3), sect. 113(4) [para. 41]; sect. 221(1)(b) [para. 36]; sect. 230(1), sect. 230(5) [para. 17].

Counsel:

Leslie J. Dellapinna and Ross Haynes, for the plaintiff;

Harold Jackson, Q.C., and Robert Belliveau, for the defendant.

This case was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 16-17, 1984, before Grant, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 25, 1984.