04 Sep Charles v. Dudley

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 plaintiff’s 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....