Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport

Last updated
Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport
Court Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division in Edmonton
Full case nameGerhardus Kuipers et al. v Gordon Riley Transport Ltd. 1967
Decided30 September 1976
VerdictDefendant to pay $124,077.09 CAD in damages
Court membership
Judge sitting Samuel Sereth Lieberman

Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, 1 C.C.L.T. 233 (1976) [lower-alpha 1] was a Canadian personal injury case involving negligence, standard of care, causation, and hindsight. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

A Gordon Riley Transport truck on display at the Oilfield Technical Society's Centennial Park in southwest Edmonton Gordon Riley Transport truck.jpg
A Gordon Riley Transport truck on display at the Oilfield Technical Society's Centennial Park in southwest Edmonton

On 29 January 1972, Albertan newspapers including the Edmonton Journal and the Red Deer Advocate reported that a young boy had sustained serious injuries following a car crash south of Red Deer the previous day (28 January 1972). [4] [5] The following week the Lacombe Globe reported on the incident as well. [6] Four years later when the injuries were addressed in court, the multi-vehicle collision was described in more detail. [7] An initial collision between two vehicles in a whiteout area led both drivers to stop southbound on Alberta Highway 2. When a third vehicle driven by plaintiff Gerhardus Kuipers approached the site of the collision, it was forced to stop. A semi-trailer truck operated by Gordon Riley Transport subsequently entered the whiteout area and violently struck Kuipers' vehicle from the rear. [7] Other collisions resulted and Alberta Supreme Court Justice Samuel Sereth Lieberman stated that the incident came to involve a total of eight vehicles. [7]

Trial and verdict

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. [lower-alpha 2] [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

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

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. [lower-alpha 3] [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

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] [lower-alpha 4] 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

  1. ↑ In such case citations, C.C.L.T. denotes Canadian Cases on the Law of Torts. [1]
  2. ↑ When inflation adjusted, this is $547,375.46 CAD in 2020 dollars.
  3. ↑ 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.
  4. ↑ 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]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation. Although specific criteria differ by jurisdiction, an action typically must satisfy the following elements of negligence: the existence of a duty of care, breach of appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the existence of the first three elements is inferred from the existence of injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

<i>Rylands v Fletcher</i> Landmark House of Lords decision on tort law

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.

Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.

<i>Arnold v Teno</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Arnold v Teno, [1978] 2 SCR 287 is a leading tort case from the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision was part of a trilogy of personal injury cases including Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd (1978) and Thornton v Prince George School Board (1978).

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eggshell skull</span> Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

Increases in the use of autonomous car technologies are causing incremental shifts in the responsibility of driving, with the primary motivation of reducing the frequency of traffic collisions. Liability for incidents involving self-driving cars is a developing area of law and policy that will determine who is liable when a car causes physical damage to persons or property. As autonomous cars shift the responsibility of driving from humans to autonomous car technology, there is a need for existing liability laws to evolve to reasonably identify the appropriate remedies for damage and injury. As higher levels of autonomy are commercially introduced, the insurance industry stands to see higher proportions of commercial and product liability lines of business, while the personal automobile insurance line of business shrinks.

<i>Venning v Chin</i> Australian court case

Venning v Chin (1974) 10 SASR 299 is a Supreme Court of South Australia full court judgment, by which it was decided that in trespass cases, the onus lies on the defendant to disprove fault. However, for injuries caused in highway accidents, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove fault on the part of the defendant.

<i>Chapman v Hearse</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Chapman v Hearse is a significant case in common law related to duty of care, reasonable foreseeability and novus actus interveniens within the tort of negligence. The case concerned three parties; Chapman who drove negligently, Dr Cherry who assisted him on the side of the road, and Hearse who, in driving negligently, killed Dr Cherry while he was assisting Chapman. In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Hearse was found liable for damages to Dr Cherry's estate under the Wrongs Act 1936. Hearse sought to reclaim damages from Chapman due to his alleged contributory negligence; Chapman was found liable to one quarter of the damages. Chapman appealed the case to the High Court of Australia on August 8, 1961, but it was dismissed as the results of his negligence were deemed reasonably foreseeable. A duty of care was established between Chapman and the deceased and his claim of novus actus interveniens was rejected. Dr Cherry was considered a 'rescuer' and his respective rights remained.

<i>March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

March v Stramare Pty Ltd Pty Ltd was a High Court of Australia case decided in 1991 on Australian tort law. The case considered the conditions required for causation to be established in tort law, the limitations of the "but for" test and the significance of an intervening act by a third party in determining causation. In this case, the High Court held that, although it was useful in clarifying the facts of the case, the but-for test was not the exclusive test in determining causation as it posed difficulties in attributing responsibility for damages in two key types of cases. The first was in cases when attributing responsibility in cases where the damage was caused by the negligence of more than one party, and the second was in cases where the damage resulted from an intervening act. Instead, the court favoured a case-by-case basis approach in attributing legal responsibility for causation, which took both common sense principles and public policy concerns into consideration when coming to a decision.

Gerry Kuipers was a Dutch-Canadian businessman and auto restorer active in the late twentieth century. Kuipers was also the plaintiff in the 1976 Alberta Supreme Court lawsuit Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport. Following Kuipers' passing in 2013, many of his personal papers were archived in the Gerry Segger Heritage Collection at The King's University in Edmonton, Canada.

Samuel Sereth Lieberman was a Canadian judge. Lieberman was the first Jewish judge in the province of Alberta. He was inducted into the Alberta Order of Excellence in 2006.

Jason W. Neyers is a Canadian legal scholar and professor at the University of Western Ontario.

Roderick Phillip Wacowich is a former Canadian Master in Chambers in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.

References

  1. ↑ "C.C.L.T. | Legal Abbreviations and Acronyms" . Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  2. ↑ "575. Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport". The Canadian Abridgment. Vol. R25 (2 ed.). 2003. p. 102. OCLC   977718263.
  3. ↑ 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.
  4. ↑ "White-out Halts Traffic; Cars Blown Into Ditches". The Edmonton Journal. January 29, 1972. p. 1.
  5. ↑ "Vicious Storm Plays Havoc with Area Roads". The Red Deer Advocate. January 29, 1972. p. 1.
  6. ↑ "Nine Cars in Pile-Up During 'White Out'". The Lacombe Globe. February 2, 1972.
  7. 1 2 3 4 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.
  8. 1 2 3 Kuipers et al. v. Gordon Riley Transport. WestLaw Next. September 30, 1976. p. 17.
  9. ↑ "Teno v. Arnold: Cases citing Ont. C.A.". Canadian Case Citations, 1867-July 1998. Vol. 21. Carswell. 1998. p. 155. OCLC   731920046.
  10. ↑ For the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, see Est. G. Ferguson v. MacLeod & MacLeod, 2000-02-02, retrieved 2020-07-24
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ 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.
  14. ↑ Jones v. Green, 1993-12-22, retrieved 2020-06-15
  15. ↑ Est. G. Ferguson v. MacLeod & MacLeod, 2000-02-02, retrieved 2020-06-15
  16. ↑ Neyers, J.W. (2016). "Divergence and Convergence in the Tort of Public Nuisance". In Robertson, Andrew (ed.). Divergences in Private Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. pp. 87–89. ISBN   978-1782256601.
  17. ↑ Neyers, J.W. (2016). "Divergence and Convergence in the Tort of Public Nuisance". In Robertson, Andrew (ed.). Divergences in Private Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. pp. 89, footnote 176. ISBN   978-1782256601.
  18. ↑ "Woitas v Tremblay, 2018 ABQB 588".
  19. ↑ Oliverius (L & L Truck Service) v. British Columbia, 1999-01-11, retrieved 2020-06-15
  20. ↑ Lamb, Jamie (February 14, 1994). "Federal Highway Action Needed On Rogers Pass". The Vancouver Sun. p. A3.
  21. ↑ Hull, Ken (February 13, 1994). "Wizard Woes". The Calgary Herald. p. 3.
  22. ↑ "Penner International Inc. v. Basaraba Estate". Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2020-06-15.
  23. ↑ "Penner International Inc. v. Basaraba Estate, 2013 BCSC 2356".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.