Auld et al. v. Wallace’s Moving Storage Ltd. et al.

both east and west of the bridge, the paved portion of the highway is wider, the paved shoulders being much more substantial off the bridge than on the bridge;

the day before the accident with which we are here concerned, another accident had taken place on the bridge as a result of which some 20 feet of the railing had been torn off near the eastern end of the bridge on the south side, namely the right hand side in the direction followed by the three motor cars.

Three completely different versions of the accident were given in evidence by the three drivers:

1. Auld told the jury that at all material time he had been proceeding well below the speed limit on his own side of the road when as he was approaching the eastern end of the bridge

[Page 824] he was overtaken by Landry and immediately afterwards struck on the rear left side by the truck which sent his car spinning around; the evidence discloses that after the accident Auld’s car was more or less at the east end of the bridge, looking back towards the west, partly on the westbound lane partly on the north paved shoulder;

2. Landry, for his part, testified that he at no time overtook Auld and that the impact between Auld’s car and the trailer truck occurred behind him, as a result of which Auld’s car was seen practically overtaking Landry’s automobile in the westbound lane proceeding backwards whereas the truck left the bridge behind Landry through the opening created by the accident of the previous day; Landry maintains that he was well on his side of the road and proceeding at a speed in the neighbourhood of 50 miles per hour;

Spagnoletti, the truck driver, stated that before he entered the bridge when driving at about 50 miles per hour, he saw the two cars almost half a mile ahead of him; he was getting closer to the bridge when he noticed what he described in his own words:

When I started getting closer to the bridge, I noticed the one car stop and I was starting to come up close behind and so I tried to stop my vehicle. But it takes quite a long distance to stop that vehicle and I didn’t think it would stop in time, in my opinion.

The second car was then stopped or nearly stopped behind the first one; when Spagnoletti made that decision to overtake them, the two cars were 400 or 500 feet in front of him; then Auld slowly swung out to overtake Landry at which time the truck itself was already occupying the left lane for traffic proceeding from west to east; it was not possible to avoid an accident and, although the brakes were applied to reduce the speed to 30 miles per hour, the truck crashed into the rear

[Page 825] of Auld’s car and finally landed on the east bank of the river below the bridge having gone around the front of Landry’s automobile.

The passengers in the two automobiles supported their respective drivers but Webb, the companion of Spagnoletti in the truck, did not see the accident being asleep at the time. However, Spagnoletti’s evidence (except as to speed) was substantially corroborated by an independent witness, one Snow, and to a lesser extent by the two companions of that witness.

Snow had stopped his small truck on the north shoulder west of the bridge, had crossed the roadway on foot and had walked a few feet on the south concrete curb in an easterly direction towards the opening in the railing of the bridge when he heard and saw the motor cars and the accident. At that time, his companions were seated in the truck. Two points in Snow’s evidence should be underlined:

1. Landry would have been stopped directly across from the hole in the railing of the bridge;

2. the speed of the truck at impact was around 50 or 55 miles per hour.

With this evidence in the record, the jury came to the following conclusion:

1. Was there any negligence on the part of Spagnoletti which caused or contributed to the damages?

“Yes”

If so, of what did such consist?

1. Inexperience.

2. Apparent lack of control of his vehicle.

3. Failure to signify intention to pass by blowing his horn.

2. Was there any negligence on the part of Landry which caused or contributed to the damages?

“No”

If so, of what did such consist?

3. Was there any negligence on the part of Auld which caused or contributed to the damages?

[Page 826]

“No”

If so, of what did such consist?

If your answer to more than one of questions 1, 2 and 3 is “yes”, is it possible for you to apportion the percentage of fault of each of the persons referred to in those questions that you answered “yes”?

“Yes”

If your answer to question 4 is “yes”, what percentage of fault do you attribute to each?