Case information

Torts – Negligence – What inferences may be drawn from circumstantial evidence in order to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie case of negligence – What is the defendant’s onus to rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie case

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant son brought an action in damages against the respondent father for injuries he sustained as a passenger in his father’s half-ton-four-wheel drive pickup truck. An accident occurred as the truck was hauling a flat deck trailer, upon which a Bronco motor vehicle and its engine block cargo was loaded. The truck and trailer left the highway and travelled down an embankment. The truck rolled over, landing upside down with its cab crushed. The trailer remained upright, with the Bronco still attached by one of three straps.

In a trial on the issue of liability, the applicant argued that he established a prima facie case of negligence and that the respondent had also breached s. 7.07(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations, B.C. Reg. 26/58 (the “Regulations”). The respondent testified that he felt a “wobble” and then the trailer began to whip from side to side. He argued that prima facie negligence had not been proven or, alternatively, that he had rebutted it by explaining that the wobbling may have been caused by a flat tire. The British Columbia Supreme Court found the respondent liable in negligence for the accident. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgment, holding that the lower court erred in several findings of fact and also erred in law in finding the respondent prima facie negligent for violating s. 7.07(3) of the Regulations.