Is a skid consistent with negligence or no negligence?

Nova Scotia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Farrell v. Casavant, 2009 NSSC 233 (CanLII):

As indicated, a skid is a neutral fact equally consistent with negligence or no negligence. One must look objectively at the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident and ask whether the Defendant was driving with the ordinary care, caution and skill which a driver is expected to exercise in those circumstances (see Grant v. Lutes, supra at ¶59.) If not – then he will not be able to rebut the presumption of negligence. If so – then the presumption is rebutted and the Defendant will not be found liable for the collision.

Other Questions


In what circumstances can a solicitor be held liable for negligence or breach of contract? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Does a skid on a highway result in a finding of negligence? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
What is the test for a claim in negligent misrepresentation? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Can a motor vehicle driver be found negligent in his failure to keep a proper lookout at the scene of a collision? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing that negligence is not the sole cause of injury? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff required to provide expert evidence to support her claim for medical negligence? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
What are the requirements for establishing negligent misrepresentation? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
What is the test for “entirely consistent” with “consent or tacit permission” by the owners of a servient property? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
In what circumstances will a plaintiff have to sue for contributory negligence? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
What is the test for negligence in an animal welfare case? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.