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.
Archive
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 MoreNew 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 MoreRick 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 MoreBy 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 MoreRick 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 MoreOn 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 MoreJoe 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 MoreNeil 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 MoreJoe 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 MoreOn 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