Snushall v. Fulsang et al., (2005) 202 O.A.C. 297 (CA)

• Judge: Feldman, Cronk and Juriansz, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: September 27, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2005), 202 O.A.C. 297 (CA)

Snushall v. Fulsang (2005), 202 O.A.C. 297 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.093

Carol Snushall (plaintiff/appellant) v. Daniel Fulsang (defendant/respondent)

Daniel Fulsang (defendant/respondent) v. George Vetzal (defendant/appellant)

(C40232)

Indexed As: Snushall v. Fulsang et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Feldman, Cronk and Juriansz, JJ.A.

September 27, 2005.

Summary:

Snushall was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Fulsang, which rear-ended a vehicle driven by Vetzal. In a motor vehicle negligence action, a jury found Fulsang 80% at fault and Vetzal 20% at fault. Snushall was found 35% contributorily negligent for failing to wear her shoulder belt. She was wearing a seat belt. Vetzal appealed the finding that he was 20% negligent. Snushall appealed the finding that she was 35% contributorily negligent.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Vetzal's appeal and allowed Snushall's appeal, reducing her contributory negligence to 5%.

Torts - Topic 346

Negligence - Motor vehicle - Passengers - General - Contributory negligence of driver or passenger - Failure to use safety equipment (incl. seat belts) - A passenger in a 1968 vehicle was injured in an accident - The vehicle had separate lap and shoulder belts - The passenger wore the lap belt, as required by law, but not the shoulder belt, which she was unaware of - A jury assessed the passenger's contributory negligence for failing to wear the shoulder belt at 35% - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and contrary to the established 5-25% range of contributory negligence - A strict causation approach, which would reduce the plaintiff's damages by the extent of the injuries that would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt, was inappropriate - The maximum 25% deduction for contributory negligence was appropriate only where wearing the shoulder belt would have prevented substantially "all" of the passenger's injuries, which was not established in this case - Given the facts of this case, the passenger's contributory negligence was fixed at 5% - See paragraphs 12 to 50.

Torts - Topic 6630

Defences - Contributory negligence - Particular cases - Failure to use safety equipment (incl. seat belts) - [See Torts - Topic 346 ].

Cases Noticed:

Olmstead v. Vancouver-Fraser Park District, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 831; 3 N.R. 326, refd to. [para. 19].

Howes et al. v. Crosby et al. (1984), 2 O.A.C. 375; 45 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Koukounakis et al. v. Stainrod (1995), 81 O.A.C. 36; 23 O.R.(3d) 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Cempel v. Harrison Hot Springs Hotel Ltd. (1997), 100 B.C.A.C. 212; 163 W.A.C. 212; 43 B.C.L.R.(3d) 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Heller v. Martens et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 84; 273 W.A.C. 84; 4 Alta. L.R.(4th) 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Bulmer v. Horsman (1987), 82 N.B.R.(2d) 107; 208 A.P.R. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Galaske v. O'Donnell et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 670; 166 N.R. 5; 43 B.C.A.C. 37; 69 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 33].

Fowler et al. v. Schneider National Carriers Ltd. et al. (2001), 193 N.S.R.(2d) 206; 602 A.P.R. 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Jackson v. Millar, [1972] 2 O.R. 197 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Dodgson v. Topolinsky (1980), 125 D.L.R.(3d) 177 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 585 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Pugliese v. Macrillo Estate (1988), 67 O.R.(2d) 641 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Thurmeier v. Bray (1990), 83 Sask.R. 183 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Ohlheiser and Ohlheiser v. Cummings, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 282; 4 Sask.R. 402 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Keller v. Kautz (1982), 20 Sask.R. 420 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Rinas v. Regina (City) and Bidochka Estate (1983), 26 Sask.R. 132 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Berube v. Vanest, [1991] O.J. No. 1633 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 34].

Schon v. Hodgins, [1988] O.J. No. 743 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Gervais v. Richard (1984), 48 O.R.(2d) 191 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Stamp v. Ontario (1984), 47 O.R.(2d) 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

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. 34].

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. 34].

Holstein v. Berzolla, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 159; 10 Sask.R. 242 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

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. 34].

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. 34].

Earl v. Bourdon (1975), 65 D.L.R.(3d) 646 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Gagnon v. Beaulieu, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 702 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Aujla v. Christensen, [1992] B.C.J. No. 860 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Pharness v. Wallace, [1987] B.C.J. No. 2393 (S.C.), affd. [1989] B.C.J. No. 2112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Froom v. Butcher, [1975] 3 All E.R. 520 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Heeney v. Best (1979), 28 O.R.(2d) 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Brough et al. v. Templeton et al. (1997), 23 O.T.C. 333 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

Jeffrey W. Strype, for the appellants;

R. Donald Rollo and Lucie Pivrnec, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on April 14, 2005, before Feldman, Cronk and Juriansz, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Juriansz, J.A., and released on September 27, 2005.