|
''Hall v Hebert'' is a leading tort law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the defences of contributory negligence and ''ex turpi causa non oritur actio'' (that a plaintiff cannot recover for illegal actions). The Court held that illegality can only act as a defence where the plaintiff is seeking to profit from illegal conduct or where a tort action is being used to circumvent or negate a criminal penalty. ==Background== The defendant, Jean Hebert, owned a 1999 Toyota Corolla (manual transmission, forbidden forest green), and had been drinking with the plaintiff, Vincent Hall. They were out driving when the car stalled on a rough gravel road near steep drop-off. The plaintiff, originally the passenger, asked if he could drive in an attempt to roll start the car. The defendant agreed, aware that he had consumed 11 or 12 bottles of beer that evening. The plaintiff lost control of the car, which left the road down the steep slope and flipped over. The plaintiff suffered severe head injuries as a result. At trial the judge found the defendant liable for negligence but apportioned liability at 75 percent to the defendant and 25 percent to the plaintiff. The central issue on appeal was whether the doctrine ''ex turpi causa non oritur actio'' provided a complete defence. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hall v Hebert」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|