IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH
COLUMBIACitation:Charles v. Dudley,2012 BCSC 1301Docket:
M101674
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Shirley
Charles
Plaintiff
And
Matthew
Dudley, Julie Valough-Buhl
and Alfred Bailey
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Mr.
Justice McEwan
Reasons for JudgmentCounsel for the Plaintiff:M.J. BauerCounsel for the Defendants:J. LockePlace and Date of Trial/Hearing:Vancouver, B.C.
June 25-27, 2012Place and Date of Judgment:Vancouver, B.C.
September 4, 2012 I
[1]
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on June 1, 2008.
She was a passenger in a 1999 Chevrolet Silverado truck owned and operated by
her boyfriend Alfred Bailey which was struck by a 2007 Hyundai operated by
Matthew Dudley near the intersection of Fraser Highway and 200th Street in
Langley, British Columbia. Liability is admitted by Mr. Dudley, as is the fact
that he was operating the vehicle involved in the accident with the consent of
Julie Valough-Buhl, its registered owner.
II
[2]
The trial proceeded in a fashion I would have described as unorthodox
until recently, with the medical evidence called before the plaintiff
testified. Counsel advised that they understand this to be the preferred way to
run a personal injury case. I do not know where they get this idea. If
persuasion of the trier of fact is the objective, the practice of leading
medical opinion unattached to any factual foundation is the most awkward way to
go about it. I have observed elsewhere that doctors do not subject their
patients to a forensic examination. They generally assume that what the patient
tells them is true and attempt to treat their symptoms. Their observations are
of assistance to the trier of fact to the degree to which they reasonably
conform to the facts that have been established after the plaintiffs
assertions have been tested. It is very difficult to assimilate medical
evidence provisionally, that is, with no means of sorting what matters from
what does not. A trier of fact obliged to hear a trial this way must go back over
such evidence to put it in context. This Court is not alone in making this
point....