Priestman v. Colangelo
Encyclopedia
Priestman v. Colangelo [1959] S.C.R. 615, 19 DLR (2d) 1 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the exemption of police officers and other pulibc authorities from being held liable for tort
ious acts. This case is also the most famous of the series of "stumbling police" cases dealt with by the Supreme Court during this era.
A police officer was pursuing a car theft suspect when the officer attempted to shoot out the rear tire of the suspects car. The bullet missed the tire but hit the driver instead, causing him to drive off the road and killing two pedestrians.
The Court held that the officer was not liable because he had acted reasonably in the course of his statutory duty to apprehend the suspect. A test for negligence was proposed by Locke J., stating that:
While the principle still stands, the outcome likely would have been different given the other factors that must be weighed against more modern policy attitudes.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision on the exemption of police officers and other pulibc authorities from being held liable for tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
ious acts. This case is also the most famous of the series of "stumbling police" cases dealt with by the Supreme Court during this era.
A police officer was pursuing a car theft suspect when the officer attempted to shoot out the rear tire of the suspects car. The bullet missed the tire but hit the driver instead, causing him to drive off the road and killing two pedestrians.
The Court held that the officer was not liable because he had acted reasonably in the course of his statutory duty to apprehend the suspect. A test for negligence was proposed by Locke J., stating that:
- If the circumstances are such that the legislature must have contemplated that the exercise of a statutory power and the discharge of a statutory duty might interfere with private rights and the person to whom the power is given and upon whom the duty is imposed acts reasonably, such interference will not give rise to an action.
While the principle still stands, the outcome likely would have been different given the other factors that must be weighed against more modern policy attitudes.