Steele-Wells v. Mahood et al., (1995) 56 B.C.A.C. 192 (CA)
|Judge:||Southin and Hollinrake and Donald, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Court of Appeal of British Columbia|
|Case Date:||January 17, 1995|
|Citations:||(1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 192 (CA)|
Steele-Wells v. Mahood (1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 192 (CA);
92 W.A.C. 192
MLB headnote and full text
Laura Elizabeth Steele-Wells (plaintiff/appellant) v. Mary Anita Rosalind Mahood and Rory Mahood (defendants/respondents)
Indexed As: Steele-Wells v. Mahood et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Southin and Hollinrake and Donald, JJ.A.
January 17, 1995.
The plaintiff driver sued the defendant driver and owner for damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle collision. The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the ground, inter alia, that the trial judge drew an improper inference from the evidence.
Evidence - Topic 205
Inferences and weight of evidence - Inferences - Inferences, conditions precedent - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that an inference should not be drawn against a witness, whether a litigant or a non-litigant witness, unless the inference which is sought to be drawn is squarely put to the witness - See paragraph 5.
Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 5].
A. Berna, for the appellant;
D. Hori, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard at Kamloops, British Columbia, before Southin, Hollinrake and Donald, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
On January 17, 1995, the judgment of the court was rendered orally and the following opinions were filed:
Southin, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 8, 11 and 12;
Hollinrake, J.A. - see paragraph 9;
Donald, J.A. - see paragraph 10.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP