Skip to content

Client Update: Perrin v Blake reaffirms the law on contributory negligence and recovery of damages

In a case where there is a contributorily negligent plaintiff and two or more negligent defendants, can the plaintiff recover 100% of her damages from any of the defendants? The answer in Nova Scotia is no, which Justice McDougall recently confirmed in Perrin v Blake, 2016 NSSC 88.

Nova Scotia’s Contributory Negligence Act provides in section 3 that a plaintiff found contributorily negligent is only entitled to recover from each defendant in proportion to that defendant’s liability. The words “jointly and severally” do not appear in the Contributory Negligence Act – an important factor in the decision.

In other words, the defendants are not jointly and severally liable to the negligent plaintiff. They are only severally, or proportionately, liable.

Take the example of a Nova Scotia plaintiff who is found 50% liable for a motor vehicle accident, with each of two defendants 25% liable. The plaintiff can only recover 25% of her damages from each defendant, because that is the proportion that corresponds to each defendant’s own fault. (If the defendants were jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff could recover the entirety of the other 50% share of her damages from either defendant, who could then pursue their co-defendant for contribution pursuant to the Tortfeasors Act.)

Justice McDougall’s decision on this point is consistent with many previous Nova Scotia cases, like Inglis Ltd v South Shore Sales & Service Ltd (1979), 31 NSR (2d) 541 (SC (AD)); Lunenburg (County) District School Board v Piercey, 1998 CanLII 3265 (CA); Teed v Amero, 2001 NSSC 97; and Merrick v Guilbeault, 2009 NSSC 60.

These cases have not been overtaken by the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Bow Valley Huskey (Bermuda) Ltd v Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd, [1997] 2 SCR 1210 or Ingles Tutkaluk Construction Ltd, 2000 SCC 12, which dealt with different statutory regimes.

Justice McDougall acknowledged that other provinces—like Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan—have made different legislative choices about the liability of concurrent tortfeasors where there is contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. On Nova Scotia’s regime, Justice McDougall noted: “While this may limit a plaintiff’s ability to recover, it is nonetheless a valid way to allocate the risk of non-recovery and should not be interfered with.”

Therefore, the status quo remains in force in Nova Scotia: a contributorily negligent plaintiff will only be able to recover from each of multiple concurrent tortfeasors according to the proportion of their liability.

Stewart McKelvey represented one of the defendants in this matter and successfully advocated for this confirmation of the law. The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions about how this may affect you, please contact a member of our Insurance practice group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top