Weaver and Weaver v. Buckle and Buckle, (1982) 35 A.R. 97 (QB)

• Judge: Yanosik, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 04, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 35 A.R. 97 (QB)

Weaver v. Buckle (1982), 35 A.R. 97 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Weaver and Weaver v. Buckle and Buckle

(No. 8003-14095)

Indexed As: Weaver and Weaver v. Buckle and Buckle

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Yanosik, J.

January 4, 1982.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages after the infant plaintiff was struck, while crossing the street, by the defendant's car.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action but found the infant 40% at fault for not keeping a proper lookout. The court found that the infant suffered severe brain damage and awarded him $70,000 for nonpecuniary general damages.

Torts - Topic 3

Negligence - General - What constitutes a negligent action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that where there is nothing to obstruct the vision and there is a duty to look, it is negligence not to see what is clearly visible - See paragraph 23.

Torts - Topic 362

Negligence - Motor vehicle - Pedestrians - Contributory negligence of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found an infant 40% at fault for failing to keep a proper lookout before he was struck by an automobile while crossing the street - See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Damage Awards - Topic 102

Injury and death - Head injuries - Brain damage - Permanent disability - Infant male - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded $70,000 for nonpecuniary general damages - See paragraph 52.

Damages - Topic 1543

General damages - General damages for personal injury - Pain and suffering - Loss of amenities and other nonpecuniary damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the upper limits for nonpecuniary awards have been fixed by judicial authority at $100,000 and unless there are exceptional circumstances, for the sake of uniformity, that maximum should not be exceeded - See paragraph 52.

Cases Noticed:

Dearing v. Hebert, [1957] S.C.R. 843, appld. [para. 17].

Chomicki v. Pasechnik (1970), 75 W.W.R.(N.S.) 470, consd. [paras. 17, 21].

Feener v. McKenzie, [1972] S.C.R. 525, consd. [para. 17].

Winnipeg Electric Company v. Gell, [1932] A.C. 690, refd to. [para. 18].

Stanley v. National Fruit Company (1929), 24 Sask. L.R. 137, refd to. [para. 19].

Swartz Bros. Ltd. v. Wills, [1935] S.C.R. 628, refd to. [para. 21].

McEllistrum v. Etches, [1956] S.C.R. 787, consd. [para. 25].

Strehlke et al. v. Camenzind et al., [1980] 4 W.W.R. 464; 27 A.R. 257, consd. [para. 25].

Teno v. Arnold, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609, appld. [para. 47].

Andrews v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Limited, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 299; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 557; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452, appld. [para. 51].

Fenn v. Corporation of the City of Peterborough et al. (1979), 9 C.C.L.T. 1, appld. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, S.A. 1975, c. 56, sect. 158(1) [paras. 15, 16, 17, 22]; sect. 134 [para. 24].

Contributory Negligence Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 70 [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

O'Connors, The Highway Traffic Act (5th Ed. 1951), p. 106 [para. 11].

Counsel:

H.W. Veale, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

J.P. Brumlik, Q.C., for the defendants.

This case was heard before YANOSIK, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 4, 1982.