roulait – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[TRADUCTION] (1) Le 17 mai 1971, l’appelante roulait sur l’avenue St. Clair est dans la municipalité du Grand-Toronto, revenant chez elle après une leçon de français.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	(1) On the 17th day of May, 1971, the appellant was travelling along St. Clair Avenue East in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, returning to her home from a French lesson.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Le 13 juin 1987, l'intimé s'est fait arrêter par un agent de la GRC alors qu'il se trouvait au volant d'un véhicule automobile qui, d'après l'agent, roulait à une vitesse excessive. L'intimé a reçu une contravention pour cette infraction et, quand on a découvert qu'il était sous le coup d'une interdiction de conduire, un "avis de comparaître" pour répondre à une accusation portée en vertu du par.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	On June 13, 1987, the respondent was stopped by an R.C.M.P. officer while driving a motor vehicle which the officer alleged was speeding.  The respondent received a ticket for the alleged infraction, and upon discovery that he had been prohibited from driving, was given a "notice to appear", to answer a charge under s. 88(1) of the Act.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Tout d’abord, j’ai mandat d’admettre que le 19 avril 1976 (ou vers cette date), à 9 h 10 (ou vers cette heure), l’accusé, Richard Harvey Moore, roulait vers le sud le long de la rue Government près de Pandora et a traversé ce carrefour alors que le feu de circulation n’était pas encore passé au vert; en fait, le feu était rouge lorsqu’il a traversé le carrefour sur sa bicyclette à dix vitesses.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

If it please, your Honour, I have certain admission of facts to make to expedite matters. Firstly, I am instructed to admit that on or about the 19th of April 1976, at or about 9:10 a.m., the Accused, Richard Harvey Moore, was southbound on Government Street at Pandora and at that intersection proceeded through a light which had not yet turned green and was, in fact red when he proceeded through on his ten-speed bicycle. That is the extent of my admission of fact.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Le témoignage de Madame Welsh, qui parle de vitesse indue, n’est pas, à lui seul, solide, mais il se trouve confirmé, pour autant qu’on puisse dire, par les faits matériels de l’accident, et la vitesse à laquelle le défendeur roulait doit être considérée en relation avec la vigilance avec laquelle il conduisait.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The defendant Aujla, however, was also negligent in operating his automobile at an excessive speed bearing in mind the inadequate lookout he was keeping. He did not even see the tail-light according to his testimony. Mrs. Welsh’s evidence of undue speed by itself is not strong but it is if anything confirmed by the physical facts of the accident and his speed must be considered in relation to the lookout he was keeping.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il faut également tenir compte du fait que le camion de Slobodian, au moment de l’accident, roulait à 58 milles à l’heure sur ce qu’il a dit être «une route mouillée» et que d’autres témoins ont dit être «une route glacée».

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

It must also be considered that Slobodian’s truck was at the time of the accident being driven at 58 miles per hour on what he says was “a wet road”, other witnesses say “an icy road”. His exact speed is known because his unit was fitted with a recording device. On his own admission, he was driving at that speed with his lights on low beam. There was a slight curve on the highway, but the visibility was unobstructed. On high beam he would have seen 500 feet ahead but on low beam, his range of visibility was 200 feet only. When asked if he could stop in that distance driving at 58 miles an hour, Slobodian’s answer was:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

(2) Quant à M. et Mme Tratch: M. Tratch a témoigné qu’il a vu l’appelant sur le chemin, à quelque cent pieds de lui, alors que lui-même roulait à 25 ou 30 milles à l’heure; que peu avant que la voiture le rejoigne, l’appelant, «traversa le chemin» devant le témoin, de l’ouest à l’est; «il marchait plus ou moins en titubant, devant la voiture».

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

(2) As to Mr. and Mrs. Tratch: Mr. Tratch testified that when travelling at 25 to 30 miles an hour he saw appellant on the road 100 feet or so away who, as the car neared him “took across the road in front of me” from the west to the east and that he was “kind of wobbly walking in front of the car.” Mrs. Tratch said: “I seen a man. He was going north and we were going south. And that man was going—he didn’t go straight. It was going like zigzag or—on that road. We were passing him.” This meeting was not located in relation to the point of impact.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

5 Les enquêteurs de la police ont conclu qu’au moment de l’accident le véhicule roulait vers l’ouest sur la route 3 et qu’il a quitté la chaussée à environ 10 mètres à l’est de l’entrée d’une halte routière.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

5 Police investigators concluded that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle had been travelling westbound on Highway 3 and left the roadway at a point approximately 10 metres east of the entrance to a rest area.  The vehicle then tumbled down a rock-covered embankment into the swollen flood waters of Nicolum Creek and was swept downstream.  The vehicle left the road with sufficient momentum to break a path through some small alder trees.  Loewen was found, with his seatbelt in place, in the driver’s seat.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

A son dire, l’appelant se trouvait à 10 pieds peut-être devant la voiture lorsqu’il l’a d’abord aperçu au milieu du chemin. Il ajoute qu’il roulait à ce moment-là à 40 milles à l’heure. On n’a pas dit que d’autres voitures circulaient alors sur le chemin.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

(3) As to Mr. and Mrs. Statchuk: Mr. Statchuk testified at or about 3 miles from Buchanan, while driving southward at about 40 miles an hour, he met appellant. His evidence was that appellant was 10 feet or so in front of the car when first seen by him in the middle of the road. Statchuk says that at the time he was driving at 40 miles an hour. There is no suggestion of any other traffic on the road at the time. He did not explain why, if his vehicle carried the lights required by law, he did not see appellant until within 10 feet or so of him. Mrs. Statchuk said: “And when we came closer he sort of jumped to the road or wobbled on the middle of the road.”

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	La première branche du critère est respectée.  L'appelant roulait dans une rue au volant de sa fourgonnette.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	The first part of the test was met.  The appellant was driving his van down a street.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il estime que le demandeur se trouvait alors à quelque 150 pieds en avant de lui. Il roulait alors à environ 45 milles à l’heure et il a immédiatement freiné et serré à droite. Le conducteur aurait eu assez de place pour dépasser le

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The plaintiff while walking along on a rural highway at night was struck from behind by an automobile owned by the first defendant and driven by the second defendant. The plaintiff, dressed in a dark suit, was walking northward, and according to the evidence of the defendant driver appeared to be walking in a normal manner two or three feet to the east of the centre of the road. The driver, who was also proceeding north, first saw the plaintiff when he switched his lights on to high beam, after meeting an approaching vehicle. His estimate was that the plaintiff was then about 150 feet ahead. The driver was then travelling at a speed of about 45 miles an hour. He immediately applied his brakes and pulled toward his right. There was room to

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

A un carrefour, l’accusé a brûlé un feu rouge alors qu’il roulait à bicyclette dans la ville de Victoria. Un agent de la paix de la police municipale de Victoria en service Ta vu commettre l’infraction, l’a arrêté et, dans l’intention de lui donner une contravention, lui a demandé son identité.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The accused went through an intersection, in the City of Victoria, against a red light on his bicycle. A peace officer employed with the Victoria City Police, who was on duty and observed the infraction, stopped the accused and, with the intention of giving him a traffic ticket, asked for identification. The accused refused to give his name and address. As a result, he was charged with unlawfully and wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to s. 118 of the Criminal Code. At trial, the trial judge directed the jury that there was no evidence of obstruction of the police officer and the jury, accordingly, returned a verdict of acquittal. On appeal by the Crown, this verdict was reversed and a new trial directed. From that decision the accused appealed to this Court.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il avait croisé une voiture un peu plus tôt mais il avait remis ses feux de route; il a distinctement vu l’appelant puisqu’il a remarqué que ce dernier se trouvait à quelque 150 pieds en avant de lui, nutête et les mains aux côtés. Le conducteur a dit qu’il roulait à une vitesse de 40 à 45 milles à

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

When he was first seen by the driver, appellant was walking northward and the driver said he appeared to be walking in a normal manner about two or three feet to the east of the centre of the road in what the driver described as a smooth or worn path made by northbound traffic. There was, accordingly, a space of about nine to ten feet at most to his right and some 15 feet to his left. A standard automobile is about six feet in width. There was no southbound or oncoming traffic to affect the driver’s vision or manoeuvrability after he saw the appellant. The driver had met a southbound automobile before seeing appellant but had switched his lights back to high beam after this meeting and then saw appellant plainly for he observed that appellant was bare-headed and with his hands to his sides and some 150 feet ahead. The driver said he had been going from 40 to 45 miles per hour before meeting the southbound

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il n’y a pas de doute que Gagné pouvait nettement voir toute personne quittant le trottoir est de l’avenue Smart lorsqu’il a dépassé l’arrière de la camionnette des Postes, et il était alors à quelque 25 pieds de l’intersection. C’est ce que démontre le croquis P-3. Il roulait à une vitesse de 15 à 20 milles à l’heure, ou de 22 à 30 pieds à la seconde. Il dit que l’enfant s’est élancé.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

There can be no question but that Gagné had a clear view of anybody leaving the sidewalk on the east side of Smart Avenue as he passed the rear of the mail truck and he was then some 25 feet from the intersection. The plan P-3 demonstrates this. He was going from 15 to 20 miles an hour or from 22 to 30 feet a second. He says the boy ran out. The six-year old boy could not run at a speed of more than 5 to 6 miles an hour. It would take the boy from 2 to 4 seconds to arrive at the point where he was struck according to Gagné. Thériault’s evidence as to the point of impact is clearly wrong. The truck did not stop where he said it did. I can see no reason why the boy was not seen by Gagné if Gagné had been keeping a proper lookout. In a 2-second interval the truck would have travelled a minimum of 44 to 60 feet, the boy from 14 to 18 feet. If the boy was struck at or near the point where the blood was seen on the pavement he must have been within the intersection on his diagonal course a minimum of three seconds in which time the truck travelled from 66 to 90 feet, and he from 21 to 24 feet.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Avant l’accident, Dugas roulait à 25 milles à l’heure environ dans la voie de gauche qui est habituellement réservée à la circulation plus rapide et il s’était arrêté au feu rouge à l’intersection de la 32e rue.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The facts are fully set out in the judgments below. Shortly stated, they are as follows. The accident occurred at about 7:30 p.m. on October 28, 1964. Both vehicles were proceeding from east to west on Sherbrooke Street, in Pointe-aux-Trembles near the intersection of 32nd street. The road was properly illuminated and the visibility, while not excellent, was such as to permit safe driving at 45 miles per hour, according to one of the investigating police officers. Dugas was driving a 1956 model truck in an indifferent state of repair. In particular, most of the rear lights seem to have been inoperative. The truck was loaded with eight rolls of paper weighing 800 to 1,200 pounds each. Prior to the accident, Dugas had been driving at about 25 miles per hour, in the left hand lane of the road usually reserved for faster moving traffic, and had stopped on the red traffic light at the intersection of 32nd Street. Almost immediately after starting up again, his truck was struck in the rear by the Pontiac convertible owned and driven by the deceased Yvon Laurin. As a result of the collision, several rolls of paper were thrown from the truck crushing the Pontiac convertible and killing its driver.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Le camion était surchargé, dépassant de 1 160 kg le poids brut maximal permis pour le véhicule. L'appelant roulait dans la voie de dépassement destinée aux véhicules circulant vers l'est. La victime, qui se dirigeait vers le sud dans la rue Cambie, s'était arrêtée à un feu rouge à l'intersection susmentionnée.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The accident occurred at about 3:40 in the afternoon in downtown Vancouver.  The streets were wet at the time, a situation not uncommon to that city.  The downtown traffic was heavy.  The appellant was driving his dump truck eastbound on Nelson Street, a four lane road, approaching its intersection with Cambie Street.  At the time, his truck was overloaded.  It exceeded by 1160 kg the maximum gross weight permitted for the vehicle.  He was travelling in the passing lane for eastbound traffic.  The deceased was travelling southbound on Cambie Street.  He had stopped for a red light at the intersection with Nelson Street.  When the light turned green, the deceased proceeded into the intersection through a cross-walk, continued south across the two lanes for westbound traffic on Nelson Street and reached the passing lane for eastbound traffic.  At that moment, his car was struck on the right side by the dump truck killing him instantly.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Les travaux ont été exécutés d’une manière négligente et des roches qui auraient dû être enlevées sont restées sur la falaise. Malheureusement, l’une de ces roches est tombée et a tué Robert Holt au moment où il roulait en direction nord sur la route.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

1 Cory J. -- The respondent was aware that the rock face bordering Highway 99 in the Province of British Columbia required scaling to prevent rocks falling on the highway.  The Ministry of Transportation and Highways engaged a contractor (Cerka Contract Management Ltd. (“Cerka”)) to perform the work.  The work was done negligently and rocks which should have been scaled or removed remained on the cliff face.  Unfortunately one of those rocks fell and killed Robert Holt as he was driving north on the highway.  If the work had been done by employees of the respondent there is no doubt that it would be liable for the damages resulting from the demise of Mr. Holt.  The sole issue to be resolved is whether by engaging an independent contractor to do the work, the respondent is absolved from liability.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[61] En ce qui a trait à l’incidence de la violation sur l’attente en matière de vie privée, le fait que la perquisition a été faite dans un véhicule qui roulait sur une voie publique est pertinent. L’attente en matière de vie privée est moindre dans ce lieu très public, car l’usage des routes est fortement réglementé et, en conséquence, l’interception par les policiers pour des contrôles routiers est une nécessité à laquelle les usagers doivent s’attendre.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

[61] Regarding the impact of the violation on the expectation of privacy, the fact that the search was conducted in a vehicle travelling on a public highway is relevant.  The expectation of privacy is reduced in this very public place, since the use of highways is subject to extensive regulation and the police must therefore conduct roadside checks, so it should not come as a surprise to motorists to be stopped.  Moreover, the vehicle was rented, and it had not been rented in Mr. Harrison’s name.  It can be assumed that a reasonable person does not have as strong a connection with a vehicle rented by a third party as with his or her own vehicle and would consider a search of a vehicle rented on a short‑term basis by a third party to be less intrusive than a search conducted in a place belonging to him or her.  In R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341, the majority held that the passenger had no expectation of privacy in a vehicle that did not belong to her.  In that case, the Court referred, without providing an answer in respect of it, to the situation of two people travelling together on an extended journey.  That is the very situation in the case at bar.  In my view, Mr. Harrison himself denied any expectation of privacy when he said that neither the boxes in the vehicle nor their contents were his.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Les faits de l'espèce ne sont ni compliqués ni contestés. Le 9 janvier 1988, un policier a remarqué que l'accusée roulait à une vitesse excessive. Il lui a ordonné de s'arrêter et a constaté qu'elle démontrait des signes d'ébriété.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The facts of this case are neither complicated nor in dispute.  On January 9, 1988 the accused was observed by a police officer to be travelling at an excessive rate of speed.  She was pulled over by the officer and showed signs of intoxication.  As a result of visual observation and a series of co-ordination tests, the accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired, contrary to s. 237(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 (now s. 253(a)).  The accused was then taken to the police station and given a breathalyzer test after which she was charged with operating a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that her blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit, contrary to s. 237(b) (now s. 253(b)) of the Code.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

158. Le conducteur avait aussi un devoir envers l’appelant lorsqu’il l’a aperçu à 150 pieds devant la voiture qui roulait vers le nord, dont l’appelant apparemment ne se rendait pas compte de l’approche.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

It appears clear to me that the learned trial judge concerned himself unduly with fault on the part of appellant and gave too little weight tos. 158(1). The driver also had a duty towards appellant when he was observed 150 feet in the path of the northbound vehicle and apparently unaware of its approach. In those circumstances, there was, in my opinion, an obligation on the driver to sound the horn. The requirement of s. 112(1) of sounding the horn only when reasonably necessary emphasizes, I think, the necessity to do so when reasonably necessary. The burden cast upon the driver by s. 158(1) remains on him to the end of the case. It is not discharged by an equivocal statement that he may or may not have sounded the horn. The speed of his vehicle was, as he says, from 40 to 45 miles an hour when he first saw appellant. The vehicle came to a stop as it hit appellant. Taking 22 miles an hour as the average speed over the distance of the skid mark means that the driver had a minimum of three seconds after he saw him in which to warn appellant of the car’s approach. Three seconds is not a long interval of time, but accidents happen or are avoided in intervals of seconds or fractions of a second and not in intervals of minutes for even 15 seconds prior to hitting appellant the driver, coming at 45 miles an hour, was yet almost one-fifth of a mile behind him.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

30 du soir, juste au moment où il commençait à faire noir. Mme Sorra a témoigné qu’elle roulait avec ses phares en code et qu’au moment de s’engager dans la courbe elle a pénétré dans un nuage de poussière qu’elle n’a vu qu’à la toute dernière minute.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

There was evidence of engineers and experts tendered on behalf of the appellant as well as for the respondent, some to the effect that the curve and the condition mentioned was a danger and a trap or menace at the posted speed of 50 miles an hour or thereabouts and other evidence to the effect that the curve was reasonably safe for traffic at 50 to 60 miles an hour. The accident occurred at about 5:30 p.m., just as it was getting dark. Mrs. Sorra testified that she was using her headlights on low beam, and she says that as she entered the curve she “hit a wall of dust” which she saw at the very last moment. This was the dust thrown up by her son’s vehicle. At the same instant her car passed over gravel on the road and was slewing, and as it turned sharply to the left she lost control of it. She testified that she had not seen the checkerboard sign or the curve sign and she attributes this to the cloud of dust referred to. She was unaware that there was a curve at that point until she got to it.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

L'appelant, au volant d'une Ford Bronco, roulait en direction sud sur le chemin Campsite. L'intersection où s'est produite la collision comporte un signal d'arrêt que doivent respecter les véhicules quittant le chemin Campsite pour emprunter la route 16X.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The appellant was driving a Ford Bronco southbound on Campsite Road.  The intersection where the collision occurred is controlled by a stop sign for vehicles entering Highway 16X from Campsite Road.  The appellant was driving to work and was late.  He looked as he approached Highway 16X and thought the westbound portion of Highway 16X was clear.  He came to a "rolling stop" at the stop sign and proceeded to enter Highway 16X.  Unfortunately his vehicle collided with a white Dodge three quarter ton pick‑up truck being driven by Mr. René Laflamme westbound in the right-hand lane.  No evasive action was taken by either driver and a severe impact resulted.  The pick‑up truck driven by Mr. Laflamme rolled sideways after being struck.  Mr. Laflamme was seriously injured and the two passengers in his vehicle, John Guy Sauvé and Paul Guy Lalonde, were fatally injured after being thrown from the vehicle.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Quatre ou cinq jeunes personnes couraient le long des chariots ou d'un chariot à l'autre quand l'appelant est arrivé près du défilé. L'appelant roulait derrière le défilé; il l'a dépassé, a fait demi-tour et s'est délibérément approché à grande vitesse du défilé, du même côté de la route.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Appellant, who had been drinking, struck and killed four young people taking part in a hayride, and injured a fifth.  The hayride involved three tractors each towing a wagon with bales of hay along a public road.  Four or five of the young people had been running alongside the wagons or had been running from one wagon to another when appellant came upon the hayride.  Appellant drove behind the hayride, passed it, turned around and deliberately approached the hayride at high speed on the wrong side of the road.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Le camion-remorque mesurait environ huit pieds de largeur et Coleman a déclaré à plusieurs reprises durant son témoignage que lorsqu’il approchait de la voiture de l’appelante, il roulait dans le milieu du chemin et, en contre-interrogatoire, il a admis que son camion occupait quatre pieds de la voie du côté sud et quatre pieds de la voie nord.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

The tractor-trailer was approximately eight feet in width and Coleman stated more than once in the course of his evidence that as he approached the appellant’s vehicle he was travelling in the middle of the road and under cross-examination he agreed that four feet of the truck were in the south lane and four feet in his own northerly lane. The reason which he gave for his position on the highway was that he wished to avoid picking up any oil and thus soiling his truck. In this regard he gave the following evidence on cross-examination:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Alors que les deux véhicules approchaient l’un de l’autre, l’appelante, qui roulait à environ 50 milles à l’heure, a ralenti et s’est alors rendue compte que le camion ne se déplaçait pas vers sa droite de la route.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

As the two vehicles approached each other, the appellant, who was travelling at about 50 miles an hour, slowed down and then realized that the truck was not moving onto its own side of the highway and fearing a collision, she veered to the right driving her Javelin into the ditch where the learned trial judge found that she lost control and the car rolled over causing her serious injuries and bruising her lady passenger.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Gagné roulait à une allure légale et modérée en approchant de l’intersection et il maîtrisait si bien son véhicule qu’il a été capable de l’immobiliser avant même d’avoir complètement traversé l’intersection.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	With respect, I do not share that view. Gagné was proceeding at a legal and moderate speed in approaching the intersection and had his car under such control that he was able to bring it to a stop before he had completely crossed the intersection.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Au moment de l’accident, le camion-citerne roulait à 58 milles à l’heure sur ce que S a dit être «une route mouillée» et que d’autres témoins ont dit être «une route glacée». Les feux étaient à faisceau-croisement.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	At the time of the accident, the tank truck was being driven at 58 miles per hour on what S said was “a wet road” and other witnesses said was “an icy road”. The headlights were on low beam.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Vers 14 h, le 12 avril, Jack Schultz, qui travaille à la station de traitement d’eau potable d’Arnprior, a vu un taxi qui roulait près de la rivière Madawaska et, quelques minutes plus tard, il a entendu un bruit d’éclaboussement.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

4 At about 2:00 p.m. on April 12, Jack Schultz, a worker at a water filtration plant in Arnprior, saw a taxicab driving near the Madawaska River, and several minutes later he heard a splash.  When he approached the riverbank he observed a car sinking into the water and saw the appellant standing nearby with a duffle bag and a bundle of white clothing.  Schultz called the police; they arrived some three minutes later.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Gagné dit qu’il avançait à une vitesse de 15 à 20 milles à l’heure en approchant de l’intersection et qu’il a laissé une distance de trois à quatre pieds entre le côté sud de la camionnette des Postes et le côté droit de son propre camion, dont les roues gauche se trouvaient au sud de la ligne médiane du chemin Kildare. En ce qui a trait à la visibilité, Gagné, au volant de son camion, roulait en fait vers l’intersection au centre ou très

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Gagné said he was travelling at from 15 to 20 miles an hour as he approached the intersection and he left a clearance of from three to four feet between the south side of the mail truck and the right side of his truck and he placed the left wheels of his truck to the south of the centre of Kildare Road. Seated behind the wheel, Gagné was actually, from the standpoint of visibility, proceeding toward the intersection on or very near the centre

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

, et il semble que la plupart des feux arrière ne fonctionnaient pas. Avant l’accident, le conducteur du camion roulait dans la voie de gauche qui est habituellement réservée à la circulation plus rapide et il s’était arrêté au feu rouge.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

A convertible driven by the plaintiff’s husband struck the rear of a truck owned by the appellant company and driven by its employee. The truck was loaded with rolls of paper weighing 800 to 1,200 lbs. each, and most of its rear lights seemed to have been inoperative. Prior to the accident, the driver of the truck had been driving in the left-hand lane of the road usually reserved for faster moving traffic, and had stopped for a red traffic light. Almost immediately after starting up again, the truck was struck in the rear by the automobile. As a result of the collision, several rolls of paper were thrown from the truck crushing the convertible and killing its driver, the plaintiff’s husband. The trial judge found that the driver of the automobile had been imprudent, that the lack of rear lights on the truck had contributed to the accident, that the fact that the rolls of paper fell could not be considered as an additional fault, and concluded that there had been common responsibility. He fixed the damages at $66,358. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The defendants appealed to this Court.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Celui-ci avait conclu que les intimés en l’espèce, Coleman et H.M. Trimble & Sons Ltd. (ci-après appelée «Trimble»), étaient les seuls responsables d’un accident d’automobile qui s’était produit lorsque l’appelante roulait en direction est sur la route 33 vers Fillmore dans la province de la Saskatchewan et que l’intimé Coleman, au volant d’un gros camion-remorque appartenant à l’intimée Trimble, se dirigeait sur la même route en direction opposée et roulait à peu près au milieu de la route de 21 pieds de largeur afin d’éviter une lisière d’huile fraîche qui avait été répandue sur une largeur d’environ 3 pieds dans sa voie de circulation (côté nord).

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

RITCHIE J.—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan allowing an appeal from a judgment rendered at trial by Mr. Justice MacPherson whereby he had found the present respondents, Coleman and H.M. Trimble & Sons Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “Trimble”) solely to blame for a motor vehicle accident which occurred when the appellant was driving her Javelin motor car in an easterly direction on Highway 33 approaching Fillmore in the Province of Saskatchewan, and the respondent Coleman was driving a large tractor-trailer, owned by the respondent Trimble, in the opposite direction on the same highway and was travelling in approximately the centre of the 21-foot highway in order to avoid driving over a freshly oiled strip which extended about three feet into his (northerly) lane of traffic.