![De Mott v. Clysdale
[1931] O.R. 1
ONTARIO
APPELLATE DIVISION
LATCHFORD, C.J., MAGEE, RIDDELL, and FISHER, JJ.A.
JANUARY 23, 1931
De Mott v. Clysdale, 1931 CanLII 160 (ON CA)
County Court of the County of Lambton
The appeal was heard by LATCHFORD, C.J., MAGEE, RIDDELL, and FISHER, JJ.A.
The plaintiff and spouse were in a buggy being pulled by a horse. They were moving
north and it was being driven by the plaintiff. The defendant was also heading north on this
highway and desired to pass them on his way to his destination but instead hit the horse as it was
in the motion of changing lanes. In result the plaintiffs were injured and have brought this to
court to be reimbursed for their damages due to the defendant’s negligence, which they are
charging him for. The defendant counterclaims they were negligent and owe him for his
damages. Both parties appealed the negligence charges and the fault of the damages.
The judge comes upon the conclusion that the defendant was being negligent and the
plaintiff was showing contributory negligence. The judge reviewed the damages on both sides
and divided the blame. The decision that the plaintiff driving the horse was expecting the
defendant to signal before trying to pass and because the defendant failed to signal the plaintiffs
were not contributory negligent and have no responsibility of reimbursing the defendant for
damages.
Section 38 of the highway Act clearly states that if you desire to pass a horse and buggy
or man on a horse you must signal first giving them a chance to pull to the side if they please.
There are a few similar cases that have all been handled the same way; which is giving fault to
the automobile driver for negligence and the must supply a remedy for the damages at hand.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/bdaa61f0-8960-4763-88b5-758732e6afd5-151212191415/85/case-brief-1-320.jpg)
case brief
- 1. De Mott v. Clysdale [1931] O.R. 1 ONTARIO APPELLATE DIVISION LATCHFORD, C.J., MAGEE, RIDDELL, and FISHER, JJ.A. JANUARY 23, 1931 De Mott v. Clysdale, 1931 CanLII 160 (ON CA) County Court of the County of Lambton The appeal was heard by LATCHFORD, C.J., MAGEE, RIDDELL, and FISHER, JJ.A. The plaintiff and spouse were in a buggy being pulled by a horse. They were moving north and it was being driven by the plaintiff. The defendant was also heading north on this highway and desired to pass them on his way to his destination but instead hit the horse as it was in the motion of changing lanes. In result the plaintiffs were injured and have brought this to court to be reimbursed for their damages due to the defendant’s negligence, which they are charging him for. The defendant counterclaims they were negligent and owe him for his damages. Both parties appealed the negligence charges and the fault of the damages. The judge comes upon the conclusion that the defendant was being negligent and the plaintiff was showing contributory negligence. The judge reviewed the damages on both sides and divided the blame. The decision that the plaintiff driving the horse was expecting the defendant to signal before trying to pass and because the defendant failed to signal the plaintiffs were not contributory negligent and have no responsibility of reimbursing the defendant for damages. Section 38 of the highway Act clearly states that if you desire to pass a horse and buggy or man on a horse you must signal first giving them a chance to pull to the side if they please. There are a few similar cases that have all been handled the same way; which is giving fault to the automobile driver for negligence and the must supply a remedy for the damages at hand.
- 2. Lachford, Magee and Fischer all agree that the 500 dollars asked to fix their damages is not too large of a sum to ask for and it will be allowed. In this specific case the defendant was found negligent and responsible two thirds of the damage and would tries to resist the plaintiffs’ appeal for the other damages. Due to section 42 of the highway traffic act the responsibility of the defendant is too prove their negligence is not the cause of their damages. Since he failed to convince the majority of the jury he was found responsible for all damages and this means the appeal shall be allowed. Appeal Allowed. This topic was important to me because it sounded interesting. It made the case more pleasurable to read. This case took place in 1931 and that is when my grandma was born so that is probably another reason why this case caught my attention.