Partanen et al. v. Commission de Transport de Montréal

The plaintiff's husband was found dead lying face down on the roadway with his legs on the sidewalk. His numerous injuries, all to the upper part of the body, were the result of pressure having been applied on his left side while his right side was pressed against a stationary object, presumably the curb of the sidewalk. Marks made by a big tire Taschereau C.J. and Cartwright, Fauteux, Abbott and Hall JJ.

were found on his right wrist and part of the sleeve of his shirt. One of the defendant's autobuses had passed the scene of the accident at about that time and the tread of its right back wheel matched the marks on the wrist and sleeve of the victim. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident. The plaintiff alleged that her husband died as a result of his having been crushed by the wheel of an autobus owned and operated on behalf of the defendant.

The trial judge held that the plaintiff had not made the proof necessary to bring into play the presumption of s. 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 142, and that, in any event, the presumption has been rebutted. The majority in the Court of Appeal held that the presumption did not apply, and the dissenting judge held that it applied and that the defendant had failed to rebut it. The plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Held: The appeal should be allowed.

Per Curiam: The evidence clearly demonstrated that there has been a contact between the victim and the tire of the defendant's autobus. The presumption of fault established under s. 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act was raised. The only defence was that the defendant's vehicle had not struck the victim and that its driver had driven in a careful and prudent manner. The presumption was not rebutted. The damages were not excessive.

Per Cartwright J.: Upon the balance of probabilities the chances of the marks on the victim's wrist and shirt having been made by any other vehicle were negligible. The most probable inference to be drawn from the known facts was that the same vehicle inflicted all the injuries. The defendant did not discharge the onus cast upon it by s. 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

ABBorr J.:-This appeal is from a majority judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench' confirming a judgment of the Superior Court which dismissed claims in damages by appellants personally and by the appellant Dame Enni Partanen, as tutrix, on behalf of her five minor children. These claims arose out of the death of one Joseph Niggemann, the hus- 1 [1962] Que. Q.B.

R.C.S.

band of the appellant Enni Partanen, which occurred on the evening of February 5, 1955, allegedly as a result of his having been crushed by the wheel of an autobus owned by and operated on behalf of the respondent.

SRNN There were no eye-witnesses of the accident. The factsas to which there is now no real dispute-were found by the Abbott J. learned trial judge to be as follows:

Le 5 f~vrier 1955, un peu apris 9.30 heures du soir, Roger Clavel, conduisait vers 1'est, sur I'avenue Notre-Dame de GrAce, un autobus de la Commission de Transport de Montrial. En d6passant l'intersection de l'avenue Oxford, il apercut du cat6 nord, un homme gisant sans mouvement. II arr~ta son vihicule imm6diatement et en descendit suivi de deux passagers: Louis Emile Vigneault et Ginette D6saulniers, pour lui porter secours.

L'homme 6tait 6tendu A plat ventre, de biais, moiti6 dans la rue, moiti6 sur le trottoir. Sa tate 6tait face contre le pav6 de la rue, dans la direction ouest, ses jambes 6taient sur le trottoir en direction est. Sa main droite 6tait 6tendue dans le prolongement de sa tate. Son chapeau 6tait un peu en avant de sa tate. On le retourna. Il 6tait mort.

L'endroit reposait le cadavre 6tait 'asphalte de la rue, puis une d6clivit6 s'61evant abruptement de la rue vers le trottoir A une hauteur d'environ 18 pouces. Cette pente et le trottoir 6taient glac6s, sales et raboteux.

L'homme mort fut identifi6 comme Joseph Niggemann, 50 ans, demeurant A 4200 Oxford, Montrial. II 6tait 1'6poux de la demanderesse, Dame Enni Partanhn, poursuivant en son nom et en qualit6 de tutrice A ses cinq enfants mineurs, et le phre de l'autre demandeur: ROBERT NIGGEMANN.

L'autopsie a r6v6l6 plusieurs blessures et ecchymoses allong6es et 6troites sur le flanc gauche et 1'h6mithorax gauche, la face ant6rieure et lat6rale gauche, des fractures A neuf cates du c8t6 gauche et A sept du c8t6 droit, une fracture de la clavicule droite, un embrochement des poumons, la rupture du cceur et des poumons, une h6morragie abondante. On a relev6 des blessures au menton et A la tempe du c8t6 droit faites par choc sur une surface dure ou par frottement.

Le Docteur Jean-Marie Roussel, m~decin-ligiste, qui a proc6d6 A cette autopsie, a d6clar6 que les blessures ci-dessus d~crites 6taient dues, non h un 6crasement, mais a une pression exerche particulibrement sur le c~t6 gauche du d6funt, alors qu'il avait le c6t6 droit appuy6 contre une surface dure, telle qu'une chaine de trottoir.

Le Docteur Roussel, en faisant ses expertises, a constat6 que le difunt portait sur la peau du poignet droit une empreinte d'un gros pneu. Cette empreinte se prolongeait sur 'extr6mit6 de la manche droite de la chemise du d6funt, produite comme pi~ce P-5. IL en a 6t6 conclu que cette empreinte avait t&6 laiss6e par le passage d'un v6hicule lourd.

119641 Le d6tective Marc Maurice, de la cit6 de Montr6al, faisant enquate, P A

EN retraa sur l'autobus 1195 de la Commission de Transport de Montrial, un pneu sur la roue droite arridre dudit v6hicule, pouvant avoir fait ces empreintes. Cet autobus avait circulM avenue Notre-Dame de GrAce, pris de I'avenue Oxford, vers le temps oil Joseph Niggemann y fut trouv6 mort. As I have said, there is no serious dispute as to these facts Abbott J. as found by the 'learned trial judge. The principles of law to be applied are also well established; Rousseau v. Bennett'. The questions in issue are as to the inferences to be drawn from the established facts and in particular- 1. Whether the death of Niggemann was caused by his having been struck by the wheel of an autobus owned and operated on behalf of respondent, thus giving rise to the presumption of fault established under s. 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 142 and 2. If it was, whether respondent has rebutted such presumption.

As to the first of these questions the learned trial judge held that the appellants had not made the proof necessary to bring the presumption into play and that even if it did apply, such presumption had been rebutted. Rinfret and Owen JJ. in the Court below held that on the evidence the presumption of fault under s. 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act did not apply. Bissonnette J. dissenting, held that it did, and that respondents had failed to rebut such presumption. I am in respectful agreement with him on both points. Whether the victim's death was due to his having been crushed by the rear wheel of autobus no. 1195 owned by and operated on behalf of respondent, depends primarily upon the evidence given by Dr. Roussel and by Detective Maurice. As to this, I adopt the following statement of Bissonnette J.:

Il est prouv6 sans aucune contradiction que Pexamen de Niggemann indiquait une empreinte sur son poignet droit, que celle-ci se prolongeait sur sa chemise et que les sculptures antid6rapantes qu'on y relevait 6taient nettement identiques A celles que comportait la semelle du pneu. Je souligne imm6diatement qu'il serait, hors de toute vraisemblance, que ces empreintes auraient t6 faites par le pneu d'un autre v~hicule qui se serait trouv6 au mime endroit deux ou trois minutes plus tt. Et la raison qui confirme cette assertion, c'est que ce pneu avait 6t6 non sculement rechap6 mais qu'A cette fin, on avait employ6 un moule particulier import6 de Lidi, 1 [1956] S.C.R. 89.

R.C.S.

Californie. Cette preuve 6mane d'un contremaitre de l'intim6e et elle est par elle-mgme concluante sur ce point. Refuser de trouver l une prisomp- PAEN tion r6pondant aux exigences jurisprudentielles, ce serait 6lever les simples prisomptions de I'homme au degr6 d'une preuve mitaphysique et math6matique.

La preuve incontest6e d'un rapport direct, 6troit et uniquement con- DE cluante dans un sens 6tablit que se produisit entre le d6funt et l'autobus un MONTRlAL contact et que l'intensit6 de celui-ci n'a pu avoir un effet autre que de Abbott J provoquer la mort. En effet, selon le timoignage du D' Roussel, de par AbtJ la nature des blessures qui en sont r6sult6es, la seule d6duction midicale possible, c'est de retenir que coinc6 entre l'autobus et la levee de glace,

Niggemann a subi une telle pression que celle-ci fut cause d'une h6morragie abondante de la poitrine, de la perforation des poumons et de la rupture du cceur. La force de cette pression lat6rale fut telle qu'elle entraina la mort, m~me si la victime ne passa pas sous la roue du lourd v~hicule. Or, il est impossible de concevoir qu'il pfit exister un rapport de cause A effet avec un autre v6hicule. En raison de la relation parfaite qui a 6t6 prouvie entre les empreintes sur le corps et la chemise du d6funt et celle relev6e sur la roue, empreinte, dans ce dernier cas, qui 6tait le prolongement des autres, un peu comme la rdunion de deux pices dans un casse-tate qui ne peuvent s'ajuster autrement, il devient absolument invraisemblable de poser mime

1'hypothise que les empreintes pourraient r~sulter d'un contact avec un autre v~hicule. De mime qu'il est d'un illogisme 6vident de pr6tendre que le d6funt aurait pu ftre renvers6 par une autre voiture; bref, tant qu'il ne sera pas possible de repousser ou d'expliquer I'empreinte sur la roue, marque qui est la continuation de celle apparaissant sur le poignet droit, on demeure en face d'un fait qui, physiquement, m6taphysiquement conduit A une conclusion irr6futable, irr6sistible. Et alors il ne s'agit pas d'une simple pr6somption susceptible, en raison de sa force, de faire accepter un rapport causal mais de la preuve d'un fait matiriel qui, parce qu'il rendait invraisemblable toute autre diduction, devait suffire a convaincre le tribunal que l'autobus 6tait entr6 en contact avec le corps de la victime.

Au reste, mame si, dans ce fait matiriel, on y veut voir qu'une simple prisomption de l'homme, celle-ci a des caract~res tels d'intensit6, de puissance et de logique qu'elle repousse mime toute th6orie de possibilitis, de conjectures.

Respondent's defence was that its vehicle had not struck

Niggemann. The only evidence tendered on behalf of respondent to rebut the presumption of fault, was that of the driver Boucher, who testified that he had driven his autobus in a careful and prudent manner. In agreement with Bissonnette J. and for the reasons which he has given, in my opinion the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of fault under s. 53.

There remains the question as to the quantum of damages. At the time of his death the victim was fifty years of age. He was sole proprietor of a modest business enterprise, his net annual revenue having been in the vicinity of $5,000 per annum. After his death this small business was sold for a low price. He left surviving him six children of [19641 whom five were minors at the time this action was instituted, their ages ranging from six to nineteen years. In his dissenting reasons Bissonnette J. fixed the damages sustained at the sum of $35,500, apportioned as follows: Dame Enni Partanen personally ......

$ 18,000 Robert Niggemann personally .........

Barbara aged 19 years ................

1,500 Peter Alfred aged 12 years ............

3,000 Thomas Otto aged 11 years ............

3,000 Carola Enni aged 8 years ..............

4,500 Irma Rita aged 6 years ................

5,000 $ 35,500 In my opinion these amounts are not excessive and I am prepared to accept them.

I would therefore allow the appeal, maintain the appellants' action, and condemn the respondent to pay to the appellant Dame Enni Partanen personally, the sum of $18,000, to the appellant Robert Niggemann the sum of $500, and to the appellant Dame Enni Partanen 6s qualit6, the sum of $17,000, all with interest from September 3, 1957, the date of the judgment in the Superior Court. The appellants are entitled to their costs throughout.

J.:-I agree with the reasons and conclusion of my brother Abbott and there is little that I wish to add.

empreintes peuvent provenir d'un autre v~hicule usageant le mime genre de pneus. Il est en preuve que des camions livrant 1'huile de chauffage circulent parfois sur la rue le cadavre a 6t6 trouv6.

Il n'est nullement impossible qu'un de ces camions ait pass& pris de l'intersection de l'avenue Notre-Dame-de-Grce et de l'avenue Oxford, le l'inersctio del'avnueDR

5 f~vrier 1955, portant un pneu capable de laisser 1'empreinte trouv6e sur

DE la manche de chemise de Joseph Niggemann.

With respect, I think that the learned Judge erred. Civil Cartwright J. cases are decided upon the balance of probabilities. In view particularly of the evidence of the witness Maurice as to the comparison of the marks on the wrist and shirt with the tread of the tire on bus number 1195 and that of the witness

Urquhart as to the tire having been recapped by the use of a mould imported from California the chances of the marks having been made by any other vehicle were negligible.

The view of the learned trial Judge on this point was not shared by any of the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench'.

The view of Bissonnette J. has been set out in the reasons of my brother Abbott.

Rinfret J. dealt with the point as follows:

L'on reste avec la seule probabilit6 que la roue en question aurait cras6 le poignet droit de la victime.

Cette probabilit6 est, A mon avis, suffisante pour qu'entre en jeu la prisomption de I'article 53, mais uniquement pour la perte ou le dommage occasionni par tel 6crasement.

Owen J. said:

As far as the autobus is concerned the only definite proof is that it ran over the victim's right hand.

Rinfret J. and Owen J. both were of opinion that although it was shewn that the bus ran over the deceased's wrist it was not established that the bus caused the injuries to his chest which were the immediate cause of death.

With the greatest respect I am of opinion that by far the most probable inference to be drawn from the known facts is that the same vehicle inflicted all the injuries.

The two other possible inferences which Owen J. regarded as equally probable with the inference that the victim was killed by the bus are stated by him as follows:

The victim could have had a heart attack or some other seizure which caused him to drop dead, partly on the roadway, before any motor vehicle ran over him.

[ [19621 Que. Q.B. 701.

[19641