Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport
| Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport | |
|---|---|
| Суд | Верховный суд Альберты, судебный отдел в Эдмонтоне |
| Полное имя корпуса | Gerhardus Kuipers et al. v Gordon Riley Transport Ltd. 1967 |
| Решенный | 30 сентября 1976 года |
| Вердикт | Ответчик заплатит 124 077,09 долл. США по убыткам |
| Членство суда | |
| Судья сидит | Сэмюэль Серет Либерман |
Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport , 1 C.C.L.T. 233 (1976) [ А ] был канадским травмы, случаем связанного с халатностью , стандартом ухода , причинно -следственной связи и задним числом . [ 2 ] [ 3 ]
Фон
[ редактировать ]
29 января 1972 года газеты Альбертана , включая Edmonton Journal и The Red Deer Advocate, сообщили, что молодой мальчик получил серьезные травмы после автомобильной аварии к югу от Red Deer в предыдущий день (28 января 1972 года). [ 4 ] [ 5 ] На следующей неделе Lacombe Globe также сообщил об этом инциденте. [ 6 ] Четыре года спустя, когда травмы были рассмотрены в суде, столкновение с несколькими транспортными средствами было описано более подробно. [ 7 ] Первоначальное столкновение между двумя транспортными средствами в районе Белой заставило обоих водителей остановиться на юге на шоссе Альберта 2 . Когда третий автомобиль, управляемый истцом Герхардусом Куйпером, подошел к месту столкновения, было вынуждено остановиться. Грузовик с прицепом, управляемый Гордоном Райли Транспорт, впоследствии вошел в район Белой и сильно ударил автомобиль Куйперса сзади. [ 7 ] Другие столкновения, и судья Верховного суда Альберты Сэмюэль Серет Либерман заявил, что в общей сложности произошел восемь автомобилей. [7]
Trial and verdict
[edit]Kuipers claimed against all drivers of the other vehicles; however, Lieberman only advanced the charge against the Gordon Riley Transport vehicle that had struck the Kuipers vehicle.[7] The case was settled in Kuipers' favour and the family was awarded a total of $124,077.09 CAD in damages.[b][8]
In Lieberman's final judgment, he cited Teno v Arnold (1974) stating that "in Teno v. Arnold, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Chief Justice McGillivray's view that the figures to be used in assessing damages for pain suffering and loss of amenities were arbitrary or conventional. That Court, however, accepted the principle that awards for similar injuries should be comparable."[9] Lieberman cited Teno v Arnold when explaining his assessment of damages.
Impact
[edit]Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport has received judicial notice and has been followed variously in the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.[10]
Negligence and standard of care
[edit]The majority of cases that cite Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport reference Lieberman's discussions of negligence and standard of care. Beginning in 1980, four years after Lieberman had delivered judgement, Justice Kenneth R. MacDonald judged MacKinnon v Hashie, stating "I must determine liability for damages suffered by the plaintiff. The approach which I must follow in a case such as this has been succinctly stated by Lieberman J. in Kuipers et al. v Gordon Riley Transport."[11][12] MacDonald subsequently quoted Lieberman as follows:
The driving conduct of the plaintiff Gerhardus Kuipers, and indeed of all the drivers involved in these collisions, must be considered in light of the general rule that the standard of care to be exercised by a driver of a motor vehicle in a particular set of circumstances is that which would be exercised by a reasonable and prudent driver in that set of circumstances.
— Samuel Sereth Lieberman, Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, p. 1
Lieberman followed this by quoting Edward Alderson: "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."[8] Therefore Lieberman's judgment considered the standard not to be one of perfection, but "an objective standard based upon the conduct of a reasonable driver in a particular set of circumstances."[8] Lieberman's discussion of negligence has been similarly quoted by Justice Alexander B. Campbell in Matheson v Coughlin (1989), by Arthur M. Lutz in Jones v Green (1993) and by Armand DesRoches in Gordon Ferguson v MacLeod (2000).[13][14][15]
Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport has been historically associated with a number of Albertan personal injury lawsuits from the 1970s that were argued on negligence principles as opposed to the English tort of public nuisance.[c][16] In his paper "Divergence and Convergence in the Tort of Public Nuisance," Jason W. Neyers compares and contrasts the legal history of Canada and England, and the ways in which personal injury lawsuits have been argued alternately on negligence principles and on the tort of public nuisance:
While at one time [Canadian] courts followed the traditional English position that accidents on or near the public highways could alternatively be pleaded in either negligence or public nuisance, after 1960 claims in public nuisance for personal injuries caused on the highway became less frequent as negligence came to be the dominant cause of action. In Alberta this trend was accelerated by the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Abbott v Kasza.
— Jason W. Neyers, Divergence and Convergence in the Tort of Public Nuisance, Divergence in Private Law, p. 89 - ISBN 9781509921126
Neyers subsequently cites Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport as an exemplary case when stating that after Abbott v Kasza, "Alberta courts consistently decided these issues using negligence principles" as opposed to the tort of public nuisance.[17]
Causation and hindsight
[edit]Although the majority of cases that cite Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport refer to Lieberman's discussion of negligence and standard of care, the lawsuit has also appeared in Canadian case law with reference to the Lieberman's discussions of causation and hindsight. In Woitas v Tremblay (2018) Justice Roderick P. Wacowich cited Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport for Lieberman's dismissal of the plaintiff's suggestion that "the actions of the other drivers established a 'chain of causation' leading up to the collision involving the plaintiff."[18] Lieberman countered the chain of causation hypothesis by stating the following:
This reasoning it seems to me is a glaring example of reasoning by hindsight, the danger of which I already mentioned, and is unacceptable. I repeat, that even if the Kuipers vehicle had been proceeding at a slow rate of speed it would have still been struck by the Riley unit [driven by Smith]. The presence of other vehicles stationary on the highway in no way contributed to the final collision, the sole and effective cause of which I find was Smith’s negligence.
— Samuel Sereth Lieberman, Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, p. 10
When Justice Barry M. Davies delivered judgment in Oliverius v British Columbia (1999), he cited Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, stating "in assessing whether a driver has acted reasonably and prudently in the circumstances facing that driver, care must be taken to avoid standards of perfection based upon hindsight."[19][d] The same discussion of "standards of perfection based upon hindsight" was cited by British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Robert W. Jenkins in Penner International v Basabara Estate (2013).[22][23]
Notes
[edit]- ^ In such case citations, C.C.L.T. denotes Canadian Cases on the Law of Torts.[1]
- ^ When inflation adjusted, this is $547,375.46 CAD in 2020 dollars.
- ^ In addition to Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, see Albertan cases such as Abbott v Kasza (1976), Marchuk v Scott (1978), and Tiessan v Scott (1979), all of which have been identified by Jason W. Neyers as marking a historical shift in Canadian tort case law.
- ^ This was with reference to a collision on the Rogers Pass involving two logging trucks that took place on 12 February 1994 whereby Lance Oliverius subsequently attempted to sue the Province of British Columbia.[20] The Calgary Herald reported that the resulting highway closures prevented a major performance of The Wizard of Oz from taking place at the Southern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium because the cast and crew were unable to travel from Vancouver to Calgary.[21]
References
[edit]- ^ "C.C.L.T. | Legal Abbreviations and Acronyms". Retrieved 2020-07-27.
- ^ "575. Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport". The Canadian Abridgment. Vol. R25 (2 ed.). 2003. p. 102. OCLC 977718263.
- ^ Appleby, Eric B., ed. (1981). "MacKinnon v. Hashie, Bridges, Milligan, Milligan and Arsenault (No. GDS-303)". Atlantic Provinces Reports. 79: 157–161. ISSN 0713-8970. OCLC 1124233926.
- ^ "White-out Halts Traffic; Cars Blown Into Ditches". The Edmonton Journal. January 29, 1972. p. 1.
- ^ "Vicious Storm Plays Havoc with Area Roads". The Red Deer Advocate. January 29, 1972. p. 1.
- ^ "Nine Cars in Pile-Up During 'White Out'". The Lacombe Globe. February 2, 1972.
- ^ Jump up to: a b c d Lieberman, Samuel Sereth (September 30, 1976). "Kuipers v. Gordon Riley Transport (1967) Ltd. 1976 CarswellAlta 69, [1976] A.J. No. 408, 1 C.C.L.T. 233". WestLaw Next. p. 14.
- ^ Jump up to: a b c Kuipers et al. v. Gordon Riley Transport. WestLaw Next. September 30, 1976. p. 17.
- ^ "Teno v. Arnold: Cases citing Ont. C.A.". Canadian Case Citations, 1867-July 1998. Vol. 21. Carswell. 1998. p. 155. OCLC 731920046.
- ^ For the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, see Est. G. Ferguson v. MacLeod & MacLeod, 2000-02-02, retrieved 2020-07-24
- For the Supreme Court of British Columbia, see Oliverius v. British Columbia, 1999-01-11, retrieved 2020-07-24
- For the Court of the Queen's Bench of Alberta, see Woitas v Tremblay, 2018-08-07, retrieved 2020-07-24
- ^ Appleby, Eric B., ed. (1981). "MacKinnon v. Hashie, Bridges, Milligan, Milligan and Arsenault (No. GDS-303)". Atlantic Provinces Reports. 79: 157–161. ISSN 0713-8970. OCLC 1124233926.
- ^ MacDonald, Kenneth R. (September 24, 1980). "MacKinnon v. Hashie 1980 CarswellPEI 52, 28 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 155, 5 A.C.W.S. (2d) 309, 79 A.P.R. 155". WestLaw Next. p. 3.
- ^ Campbell, Alexander B. (October 2, 1989). "Matheson v. Coughlin, 1989 Carswell PEI 15, 20 M.V.R. (2d) 102, 244 A.P.R. 91, 78 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91" (PDF). WestLaw Next. p. 13.
- ^ Jones v. Green, 1993-12-22, retrieved 2020-06-15
- ^ Est. G. Ferguson v. MacLeod & MacLeod, 2000-02-02, retrieved 2020-06-15
- ^ Neyers, JW (2016). «Дивергенция и конвергенция в деликте общественной неприятности». В Робертсоне, Эндрю (ред.). Расхождения в частном праве . Оксфорд: Hart Publishing. С. 87–89. ISBN 978-1782256601 .
- ^ Neyers, JW (2016). «Дивергенция и конвергенция в деликте общественной неприятности». В Робертсоне, Эндрю (ред.). Расхождения в частном праве . Оксфорд: Hart Publishing. с. 89, сноска 176. ISBN 978-1782256601 .
- ^ «Woitas v Tremblay, 2018 ABQB 588» .
- ^ Оливер (50 и 50 грузовиков) v. Британская Колумбия , 1999-01-11 , получен 2020-06-15
- ^ Лэмб, Джейми (14 февраля 1994 г.). «Федеральные действия по шоссе, необходимые для прохода Роджерса» . Ванкуверское солнце . п. A3.
- ^ Халл, Кен (13 февраля 1994 г.). «Млагкие проблемы» . Calgary Herald . п. 3
- ^ «Penner International Inc. против Basaraba Estate» . Ачесон Суини Фоли Сахота . 1970-01-01 . Получено 2020-06-15 .
- ^ «Penner International Inc. против Basaraba Estate, 2013 BCSC 2356» .