sections were drafted in more detail and in that sense are limited in their application and no doubt more favourable Kwo to the contention of counsel for the accused.
It is not, Lke however, from a construction of the language of those sections but rather that of s. 471(a) that the submission of counsel on behalf of the accused must be determined. The language of that section sets forth a clear intention on the part of Parliament to make that which the accused here did an offence.
The appeal should be dismissed.
LOCKE J.:-I am of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Mr. Justice O'Halloran in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Appeal dismissed. Solicitor for the appellant: H. T. Fitzsimmons.
Solicitor for the respondent: Eric Pepler.
HONOR
*Mar.5
AND
*Apr. 13
]EMILE HARDY (Plaintiff) .............. RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE
Minor-Automobile-Truck borrowed from father with permission-- Collision-Whether father liable-Application of 1054 of the Civil Code -Mea ning of expression "unable to prevent the damage" in 1054- Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 142, 53.
Appellant's son, a minor of twenty and one-half years, borrowed his father's truck with his permission and collided with a stationary automobile injuring one of its occupants. Both father and son were sued. The action was maintained against the son, who did not appeal, but dismissed against the father.
In the Court of Appeal, plaintiff succeeded in having the father condemned jointly and severally with the son.
Held: The action against the father should be dismissed since he rebutted the presumption of Art. 1054 of the Civil Code by proving that his son was.an experienced driver, that he had given him a good education Rinfret CJ. and Kerwin, Taschereau, Rand and Fauteux JJ.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 471(a)