Scott v. Renton et al., (1999) 215 N.B.R.(2d) 263 (CA)

• Judge: Ryan, Turnbull and Drapeau, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: June 30, 1999
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1999), 215 N.B.R.(2d) 263 (CA);1999 CanLII 13123 (NB CA);215 NBR (2d) 263;[1999] CarswellNB 271;[1999] NBJ No 306 (QL)

Scott v. Renton (1999), 215 N.B.R.(2d) 263 (CA);

    215 R.N.-B.(2e) 263; 551 A.P.R. 263

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: [1999] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.018

Harvey M. Renton and Midland Transport Limited (appellants/defendants) v. Jeffrey Allan Scott (respondent/plaintiff)

(190/98/CA)

Indexed As: Scott v. Renton et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Ryan, Turnbull and Drapeau, JJ.A.

June 30, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought a negligence action for damages against the defendants for in­juries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants admitted liability, with the excep­tion of submitting that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to wear his seat belt.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a judgment report­ed [1998] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 46, held that the failure to wear a seat belt was not contributory negli­gence where the plaintiff's injuries could have been worse if he had been wearing a seat belt. The court deferred judgment until the parties had an opportunity to submit further evidence as to whether the plaintiff's current knee condition was caused by the accident or the result of rheumatoid arthritis.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a subsequent judg­ment reported [1998] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 99, assessed damages. The defendants appealed the damage award.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Damage Awards - Topic 102

Injury and death - Head injuries - Brain damage - In 1991, the then 26 year old plaintiff labourer suffered a disabling knee injury and diffuse brain injury - The plain­tiff had not worked since 1993 - The trial judge found that the knee disability ren­dered the plaintiff disabled from return­ing to labour type work and the brain injury precluded his retraining for alternate em­ployment, because of his reduced con­cen­tration, memory and problem solving capacity coupled with his prior average to below average intellect - The trial judge assessed $100,000 general dam­ages for nonpecuni­ary loss and $200,000 for loss of future earning capacity - The New Bruns­wick Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err - His findings re­specting the knee and brain injuries and their rela­tion to employability were supported by the evi­dence - The damage awards were reason­able - In fact, although there was no cross-appeal, the plaintiff may have been undercompensated - See paragraphs 17 to 20, 25 to 44.

Damage Awards - Topic 130

Injury and death - Leg injuries - Knee - [See Damage Awards - Topic 102 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 492

Injury and death - General damage awards - Loss of earning capacity - [See Damage Awards - Topic 102 ].

Damages - Topic 1011

Mitigation - In tort - Personal injuries - Treatment for - The trial judge awarded the plaintiff dam­ages for nonpecuniary loss, past lost income and loss of future earning capacity - The trial judge reduced the award by 15% for the plaintiff's failure to mitigate (failure to follow medical advice) - The defendants appealed, sub­mitting that the 15% reduction was too low - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that not only was the 15% not too low, it was questionable given the plain­tiff's brain injury whether any reduc­tion was appro­priate (i.e., the failure to mitigate may have been the result of the injury caused by the defendants' negli­gence) - However, absent a cross-appeal, the issue was not before the court - See paragraphs 21 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Martin v. Commission de la santé, de la sécurité et de l'indemnisation des acci­dents au travail (N.-B.) (1999), 205 N.B.R.(2d) 319; 523 A.P.R. 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Boyle v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (N.B.), [1999] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229, refd to. [para. 19].

MacDonald v. Parker and Wenham (1992), 112 N.S.R.(2d) 189; 307 A.P.R. 189 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Woods v. Hubley (1995), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 97; 422 A.P.R. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

McLeod and Kaiser v. Maloney (1992), 136 A.R. 219 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Martorana v. Lee (1994), 150 A.R. 167 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

White v. Slawter (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 432 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146; 57 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 1; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 31 C.C.L.T. 113, refd to. [para. 23].

Fanjoy v. Keller (1973), 6 N.B.R.(2d) 273 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Doiron v. Goguen (1992), 130 N.B.R.(2d) 168; 328 A.P.R. 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Myshrall v. Vu (1994), 156 N.B.R.(2d) 241; 401 A.P.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

MacLeod v. Champagne, [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Landry v. Fontaine (1994), 152 N.B.R.(2d) 330; 390 A.P.R. 330 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hall v. Doucet and Chiasson (1992), 130 N.B.R.(2d) 432; 328 A.P.R. 432 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Lawin v. Jones (1994), 49 B.C.A.C. 249; 80 W.A.C. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Cyr v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Ed­mundston (1982), 39 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 103 A.P.R. 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 32].

Bulmer v. Horsman (1987), 82 N.B.R.(2d) 107; 208 A.P.R. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Bluenose Fisheries Ltd. v. Tabusintac Fish Market Ltd. (1987), 77 N.B.R.(2d) 285; 195 A.P.R. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Fogel v. Satnik (1960), 23 D.L.R.(2d) 630 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Thibert v. Thibert (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 48; 23 W.A.C. 48; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Hug v. Bliss (1998), 112 B.C.A.C. 242; 182 W.A.C. 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

MacKeigan v. Hickman - see MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commission (Mar­shall Inquiry).

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 688, refd to. [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cooper-Stephenson, Kenneth D., and Saun­ders, Iwan B., Per­sonal Injury Damages in Canada (2nd Ed. 1996), c. 5 [para. 32]; pp. 150, 151 [para. 33].

Counsel:

Bruce D. Grant, for the appellants;

Timothy M. Collins, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 28, 1999, before Ryan, Turnbull and Drapeau, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

On June 30, 1999, Drapeau, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.