In what circumstances will a third party claim in a motor vehicle accident?

In that case, therefore, unlike this present appeal, what gave rise to the third party claim is the assumption made by the court that the damage to the plaintiff is the same damage caused by either or both the defendant and third party. Hughes v. Meters does not stand for the proposition that independent, non-concurrent tortfeasors may seek contribution.

The respondents also cited the reasons of McClung J.A. for the court in Hughes v. Meters where he stated at p. 144: Here the defendant alleges that the whole of the plaintiff’s pleaded damage is not his doing and that the third parties must shoulder their aliquot portion of that loss. In our view, that is enough to engage Rule 66(1) as it is also clear to us that third party proceedings will simplify and expedite the whole of this litigation.

Those statements do not signify that the provisions of the Contributory Negligence Act and the Tort-Feasors Act create a third party claim where there is no pleading that the third party caused or contributed to the same damage. In Hughes v. Meters, the defendant made such an allegation. Here, there is no such claim against the appellant. The respondents pleaded that the appellant caused the physical injuries to Peake. They did not plead he did anything to cause or contribute to their failure to file the statement of claim. Assuming the appellant caused the original injury to Peake does not, without more, make him a joint or concurrent tortfeasor to the lawyers’ negligence.