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


 
 

Damages for minor injuries in Nova Scotia: a new case on the new cap

April 20, 2017

Damages for pain and suffering are capped for Nova Scotians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents if their injuries are considered “minor.” The cap was amended for accidents occurring on or after April 28,…

Read More

The Latest in Employment Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – “You gotta have (good) faith” … Terminating without notice during the probationary period

April 19, 2017

Grant Machum & Sean Kelly A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority) 2017 BCSC 42, provides helpful clarification of the law on termination of probationary employees on the basis…

Read More

Municipality liable for failing to ensure visitor was reasonably safe in Municipal Public Park

April 19, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Campbell v Bruce (County), 2016 ONCA 371. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court finding…

Read More

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top