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


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top