Lockhart v. Christie et al., (1994) 155 N.B.R.(2d) 26 (CA)

• Judge: Angers, Ayles and Ryan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: October 25, 1994
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1994), 155 N.B.R.(2d) 26 (CA)

Lockhart v. Christie (1994), 155 N.B.R.(2d) 26 (CA);

    155 R.N.-B.(2e) 26; 398 A.P.R. 26

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Gary R. Lockhart (plaintiff/appellant) v. Stairs Building Ltd. (defendant/respondent)

(147/94/CA)

Indexed As: Lockhart v. Christie et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Angers, Ayles and Ryan, JJ.A.

November 22, 1994.

Summary:

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehi­cle accident which was caused solely by the negligence of Christie. The plaintiff brought an action against Christie's employer, Stairs Building Ltd., on the ground that Christie was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the acci­dent.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 148 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 378 A.P.R. 81, dis­missed the claim. The plaintiff appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Evidence - Topic 122

Degree, standard or burden of proof - Burden of proof - Burden of proof in civil actions - The plaintiff was injured in an auto­mo­bile accident caused by Christie's negli­gence and sued Christie's employer claim­ing that Christie was acting in the course of his employment - The trial judge found that Christie was not acting in the course of his employment at the rel­evant time and dis­missed the action - The plaintiff argued that because the trial judge said that it was "not without some reserva­tion" that he reached his conclusion, he misdirected him­self on the burden of proof in a civil case - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that it was satisfied on the whole that the trial judge concluded that the plaintiff had not proven his case on a bal­ance of prob­abilities.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of master for acts of servant - Torts - Acts in course of employment - [See Torts - Topic 2530 ].

Torts - Topic 2530

Vicarious liability - Master and servant - Employer - Liability for acts of employees - The plaintiff was injured in an automo­bile accident caused by Christie's negli­gence and sued Christie's employer claim­ing that Christie was acting in the course of his employment - On the morning of the accident, Christie's work site had been closed because of rain and the employees were invited to finish their workday at their employer's fox farm - Some employ­ees went to the farm - Christie left driving his own vehicle - He testified that he intended to do some banking and go home - Christie received workers' com­pensation benefits after the accident - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed that Christie was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of the acci­dent.

Counsel:

John P. Barry, Q.C., for the appellant;

Stuart A. Kinney, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 25, 1994, before Angers, Ayles and Ryan, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by the court on November 22, 1994.