White v. Guptill, (1973) 5 N.S.R.(2d) 638 (CA)

• Judge: McKinnon, C.J.N.S., Coffin and Cooper, JJ.A.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: March 13, 1969
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1973), 5 N.S.R.(2d) 638 (CA)

White v. Guptill (1973), 5 N.S.R.(2d) 638 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

White v. Guptill

Indexed As: White v. Guptill

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Appeal Division

McKinnon, C.J.N.S., Coffin and Cooper, JJ.A.

May 16, 1973.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by a taxi on a street in downtown Halifax at 10:30 p.m. on March 13, 1969. It was snowing and raining at the time. The area where the accident occurred was illuminated by street lights. The plaintiff was walking diagonally across the street and he was not in a crosswalk or in an intersection. The trial court imposed the burden of proof referred to in section 22(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act and held the defendant driver 100% at fault. On appeal, the Appeal Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is set out below immediately following the judgment of the Appeal Division.

The trial court held the defendant driver 100% at fault for driving too fast in the circumstances and for failure to keep a proper lookout - paragraph 50.

The Appeal Division referred to section 111(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act which requires a pedestrian not in a crosswalk to yield the right-of-way to motor vehicles. The Appeal Division stated that the defendant's taxi was not in sight when the plaintiff pedestrian started to cross the street. Accordingly, the Appeal Division did not apply section 113(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act. See paragraph 29.

Practice - Topic 8803

Appeals - Reasons for judgment - Whether a trial judge must give reasons for his findings on the credibility of witnesses - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that a trial judge is not required to state his reasons for his findings on the credibility of witnesses - Paragraphs 16 to 19.

Torts - Topic 355

Negligence - Motor vehicle - The plaintiff pedestrian was struck while walking diagonally across an urban lighted street at night when visibility was poor - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held the defendant driver 100% at fault for driving too fast in the circumstances and for failure to keep a proper look-out - Paragraph 50 - The Court of Appeal applied the onus imposed on drivers by section 221(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act - Paragraphs 24 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Greenlund et al. v. Drysdale (1958), 40 M.P.R. 320, folld.

Barker v. McQuahe et al. (1964), 49 W.W.R.(N.S.) 685, folld.

Weeks v. Weeks (1955), 14 W.W.R. 529 (B.C.), folld.

Maze v. Empson (1965), 46 D.L.R.(2d) 9, folld.

Semanczuk v. Semanczuk, [1955] S.C.R. 658; [1955] 4 D.L.R. 6, folld.

Hontestroom v. Sagaporack, [1927] A.C. 37, folld.

Yuill v. Yuill, [1945] 1 All E.R. 183, folld.

Powell v. Streatham Manor Nursing Home, [1935] A.C. 243, folld.

Watt v. Thomas, [1947] A.C. 486, folld.

Benmax v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd., [1955] A.C. 370, folld.

Feener v. McKenzie (1972), 3 N.S.R.(2d) 829; 25 D.L.R.(3d) 283, folld.

Tuckey v. Dyer (1961), 27 D.L.R.(2d) 408, folld.

Thibodeau et al. v. Doucette (1957), 40 M.P.R. 53, folld.

Lalonde v. Kahkonen (1972), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 279, folld.

Statutes Noticed:

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 191, sect. 113, sect. 221(1).

Counsel:

L.A. Bell, Q.C., and H.E. Wrathall, for the appellant;

G.M. Mitchell, Q.C., and J.R. Grant, for the respondent.

The judgment of the court was delivered by McKinnon, C.J.N.S.