MacLeod et al. v. MacDonald et al., (1969) 1 N.S.R. 1965-69 672 (TD)
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nova Scotia|
|Case Date:||June 09, 1969|
|Citations:||(1969), 1 N.S.R. 1965-69 672 (TD)|
MacLeod v. MacDonald (1969), 1 N.S.R. 1965-69 672 (TD)
MacLeod et al. v. MacDonald et al.
Indexed As: MacLeod et al. v. MacDonald et al.
Nova Scotia Supreme Court
June 9, 1969.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the plaintiff's action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident and awarded the plaintiff $6,000 general damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, a seven year old boy, was struck from behind by the defendant's motor vehicle while riding his bicycle properly on the highway. The plaintiff was ordered by his parents not to ride on the highway and the bicycle was too large for him, in that he could only operate it by standing up on the pedals.
The trial court held that the defendant should have avoided the plaintiff. The trial court held that the plaintiff was not negligent in operating his bicycle on the highway, since it did not appear that the size of the bicycle contributed in any way to his injury. Further, the trial court held that the plaintiff was not negligent when he rode his bicycle contrary to his parents' orders.
Torts - Topic 6612
Negligence - Infants - Motor vehicle - Seven year old boy riding bicycle on highway was struck by motor vehicle - Plaintiff operated bicycle properly - Plaintiff was ordered by parents not to ride on highway - Bicycle was too large for plaintiff - Whether plaintiff was negligent - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held plaintiff was not negligent - Paragraphs 1 to 9.
Damage Awards - Topic 150
Injury and death - Multiple injuries - Head injuries - Cerebral concussion and brain contusion - Fractured pelvis and clavicle - Temporary loss of consciousness, speech and mobility - Good recovery - Seven year old male - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, awarded $6,000 general damages for personal injuries - Paragraphs 10 to 15.
Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 191, sect. 221(1).
C.M. Rosenblum, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;
A.O. Gunn, Q.C., for the defendants.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP