|
|
ÐÏ à¡± á > þÿ l n þÿÿÿ k ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á @ ñ ¿ ^ bjbj) ) 7t Kz Kz U ø ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ˆ ê ê ê F 0 4 d d d x | | | 8 ´ $ Ø , x , ¶ ë ë ë á* ½ ž+ ž+ ž+ ž+ ž+ ž+ $ Ó, R %/ @ Â+ d º ë ë º º Â+ d d Û ×+ Š" Š" Š" º @ d d á* Š" º á* Š" Š" n Y) d d ¡* (ó2L-È | ú È a* Í* í+ 0 , * e/ Â! d e/ @ ¡* x x d d d d e/ d ¡* , ë d O þ Š" M Ì ¡ ë ë ë Â+ Â+ x x | &" d x x | Supreme Court of Canada Hill v. R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 402 Date: 1973-12-21 Barbara Owen Hill (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen (Defendant) Respondent. 1973: October 23, 24; 1973: December 21. Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Laskin JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Motor Vehicles—Accident—Failure to remain at the scene of accident—Touching of vehicles—Whether knowledge of damage or injury relevant—The Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202, s. 140(1)(a). Appellant was driving behind a taxicab which stopped for a red light. On the light turning green the taxicab began to make a right turn but stopped suddenly in order to avoid a pedestrian in a crosswalk and the appellant's vehicle then touched the rear of the taxicab. There was a pause of two or three seconds and then the taxicab driver pulled over to the right of the street, which curved, and out of sight of appellant who, believing that no damage had occurred as a result of the touching, continued to drive to her home. It was subsequently shown that there was a dent in the rear bumper of the taxicab and a value of $60 was placed on this damage. The convicting Justice found that in order to convict it was not ncessary for the appellant to have had knowledge that damage occurred as a result of the touching of the two vehicles. Held (Spence and Laskin JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed. Per Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon and Dickson JJ.: The departure of the taxi driver from the immediate scene does not exculpate the appellant. Further the offence of failing to remain at the scene of an accident contrary to s. 140(1)(a) of
|
