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 tortious acts. This case is also the most famous of the series of "stumbling police" cases dealt with by the Supreme Court during this era^[1].

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.

[edit] Notes

1. ^  other cases include Robertson v. Joyce (1948), 92 C.C.C. 382 and Beim v. Goyer (1965), 57 D.L.R. (2d) 253.

[edit] External links

• full text of decision at canlii.org

This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e