Our firm has collected and organized a number of personal injury court decisions in a publicly-accessible database, for use as a resource by law students, other lawyers and firms, as well as the general public. This database will include some of our firm’s results, as well as results from many other lawyers. For information about results from this firm only, please click here.
The British Columbia Supreme Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal are the sources for all of the cases in this database; these cases are not official versions of the material produced, and were not made in affiliation with or the endorsement of the British Columbia Superior Courts.
The plaintiff claims damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred December 17, 2011 on Highway 97 North near Summit Lake, BC. In a consent order made June 3, 2013 the issues of liability and quantum were severed. I heard the issue of liability only....
Many people are attracted to live in North Vancouver by its scenic beauty and proximity to nature. However, in the past some properties there were developed in a manner that did not adequately take the forces of nature into account. ...
On April 30, 2006, David Biggs was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on Highway 3, just east of exit 173, near Hope, B.C. The collision occurred when a motorcycle operated by Mr. Biggs collided with the pup trailer of a dump truck driven by Kevin Dueck. The vehicles collided shortly after Mr. Biggs entered the highway from an eastbound on-ramp, when he came into contact with the right front portion of the pup trailer as Mr. Dueck drove eastward in the far left lane (the fast lane) of three eastbound lanes. At this point along the highway there are two through lanes and one merging lane, several kilometres long, to the far right. This section of Highway 3 is virtually straight with a very slight ascending grade for eastbound traffic. The speed limit is 100 km/h. There were no adverse weather or road conditions at the time of the collision....
This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident (the Accident) that occurred on November 5, 2007. The plaintiff was stopped at a traffic light when his vehicle was rear-ended by the defendants vehicle....
[1] The plaintiff, Rudolphus (Rudy) Vander Maeden launched two lawsuits as a result of his involvement in two motor vehicle accidents. As he was entitled to do, Mr. Vander Maeden chose to have his actions tried by a judge and jury. With the consent of all parties, both actions were tried at the same time....
On October 6, 2007, a 1964 Bell 204B helicopter owned by Rilpa Enterprises (Rilpa) and leased by Advantage Helicopters Inc. (Advantage), experienced a sudden and total loss of tail rotor drive and crashed while being used to conduct heli-logging operations near Kaslo, British Columbia. The main transmission assembly of the helicopter had been overhauled by the defendant, Heliponents, Inc. (Heliponents) at its Mesa, Arizona facility in May 2007. The plaintiffs allege the accident occurred as a result of the negligent overhaul of the transmission, which resulted in starvation of oil supply to bearings in the quill assembly of the transmission, failure of the duplex bearing set, seizure of that portion of the transmission, and the fracture of the tail rotor driveshaft....
This case involves a significant claim for damages for personal injuries following a high impact collision on August 21, 2009. Of particular interest in this case is the dramatically different approaches taken by the medical experts for both sides. In spite of statements by these experts that they are aware of their obligations as expert witnesses under Rule 11-2(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, and their duty to assist the Court and not be an advocate for any party, in some cases it is clear that the temptation to become an advocate takes priority over the obligation to assist the Court.II. BackgroundA. The Plaintiff before the Accident...
Roberto Pavan suffered injuries in a September 22, 2010 accident when the car he was driving collided with a limousine driven by the defendant Remo Guolo and owned by Canusa Limos Ltd. There were five passengers in the limousine at the time of the accident, all of whom also suffered injuries and have commenced separate actions. Liability and quantum are issues in this action....
THE COURT: This is an application by the plaintiff, Mr. Walker, brought by way of summary trial, for orders striking out and amending parts of the statement of defence. At the hearing the plaintiff sought judgment on specific issues.Background...
On October 23, 2010, the plaintiff was driving her car eastbound on Kingsway Avenue in Burnaby, British Columbia, when she was rear-ended by a car being driven by the defendant....
The plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, the defendant Dmitriy Minenko, on August 29, 2009 when it was in collision with another vehicle at the intersection of 8th Avenue and 20th Street in New Westminster....
This is an appeal by the Crown from the decision of a provincial court judge to stay certain charges against the respondent, Mr. Van de Graaf, pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, as a result of police misconduct in the course of his arrest. For the reasons that follow I would not interfere with the decision of the trial judge.I. FACTS...