The lone issue before me in this case is whether the defendant was negligent in driving his Porsche vehicle such that he struck the plaintiff while she was a pedestrian crossing Thurlow St. in downtown Vancouver. The plaintiff claims substantial injuries should the defendant be found to be negligent which injuries will be the topic of a further trial on damages should the defendant be found liable....
This is an application by the lawyer to have his bill reviewed and to obtain a certificate for fees pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9.background...
Rizwan Ali claims for damages he alleges he sustained in a motor vehicle accident on October 3, 2009, at the intersection of West 7th Avenue and Pine Street, Vancouver, B.C. Mr. Ali was stopped at the intersection when the defendant, Shirley Fineblit attempted to pass him on the left side. As Ms. Fineblit was attempting pass Mr. Ali, he turned left and her vehicle came into contact with his motorcycle. Both liability and quantum are at issue....
On April 30, 2006, David Biggs was injured in a motor vehicle collision. He subsequently sued the defendants for damages. The trial spanned 12 days, and on April 22, 2014, Mr. Biggs claim was dismissed: see Biggs v. Doe, 2014 BCSC 685....
The plaintiff claims damages suffered from a heavy head-on motor vehicle collision (the Accident) that occurred on December 30, 2010. The plaintiff suffered multiple soft tissue injuries. These included multiple contusions, chest injuries and rib injuries. However, the lasting and most significant injuries alleged are as follows:a) mechanical neck pain with pain referred into the upper extremities, most notably the left shoulder and arm;b) mechanical lower back pain;c) a fractured left ring finger at the middle phalanx;d) soft tissue and nerve injury to the right knee, causing nerve and soft tissue pain;e) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD);f) depressive disorder with anxiety, chronic and severe; andg) multifactorial chronic pain disorder associated most notably for psychological factors and a general medical condition....
The plaintiff was injured on January 9, 2011 in a head on collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant, Julia Joseph (Joseph), and owned by the defendant, Joseph Titian. Liability was not an issue in this Rule 15-1 trial because the third party acknowledged that Joseph caused the accident which resulted in significant material damage to both vehicles. Neither defendant took any part in this litigation. The issues are: the nature and extent of the injuries caused by the accident, whether the plaintiff had recovered from his injuries by the summer of 2012, what is an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages, what is the proper method for calculation of past wage loss, whether the plaintiff established his claim for diminished future earning capacity and how to calculate that loss, and whether the plaintiff established his claim for cost of future care and how that loss is to be calculated.Non-Pecuniary Damages...
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 22, 2010. This is an application by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 9 7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules for judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability. In a ruling made on July 10, 2015, I held that this was an appropriate case to sever the issue of liability from the issue of quantum of damages....
The parties have advanced various cross-applications. The plaintiff, Mr. Kitsul, seeks: i) leave to apply for a summary trial on the issue of liability; and ii) an order that the issue of liability be tried prior to, and separately from, the issue of damages....
This is an application by the plaintiff for production of defence documents 4.7 - 4.12 inclusive. Those documents have been listed subject to claims of solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege and solicitors brief privilege....
These reasons concern the assessment of the damages suffered by the plaintiff, Mr. Koltai, resulting from a car accident that happened May 7, 2011 in Langley, BC. The plaintiffs vehicle was struck from behind with considerable force and he claims to have suffered significant injuries that have completely disabled him and rendered him unable to work now or in the future. Liability for the collision is admitted by the defendant....