How have the words “by reason of” been interpreted in motor vehicle accident law?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Bell v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada, 1913 CanLII 24 (ON CA):
This Court has recently construed the words “by reason of” in Maitland v. Mackenzie (1913), 28 O.L.R. 506, as including an accident happening not from impact but from apprehension at the sudden discovery of a motor in the way.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In a motor vehicle accident in this province, when is the discoverability rule applicable in motor vehicle accidents? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for reasonable suspicion in a motor vehicle accident? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the deemed named insured provision been interpreted in the context of a motor vehicle accident claim? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the exclusionary clause in motor vehicle accident insurance been interpreted? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a motor vehicle accident is caused by accident? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any difference between the words "in any manner arising" and "whatsoever arising" in a motor vehicle accident claim? (Ontario, Canada)
Does immoveable vehicle defeat the presumption in a motor vehicle accident case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the time for an action for damages from injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident to be commenced within two years of the date of the accident? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether there is a claim against the owner or operator of the vehicle in a motor vehicle accident? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the effect of a motor vehicle accident on the daily activities performed pre-accident? (Ontario, Canada)
