Judgments
The judge found that Rhonda was responsible for the accident. An owner is responsible for damages caused by livestock while at large unless the owner establishes that reasonable care was used to make sure that livestock would not escape. Rhonda had a seriously impaired right hand that affected her ability to handle the horse when she dismounted. Dismounting in this situation increased the risk of injury to others. Rhonda did not take reasonable care to ensure that Harvey would not escape and be at large.
Next Case!
Case No. 2 - Groping for Grapes
The store had acted reasonably. The store was not held responsible for grapes spilled from flats because customers should not be handling those grapes individually and dropping them on the floor. That was a different situation from the bulk grape display. there, the judge said, it could be expected that grapes would spill - and there, the store had put mats on the floor to protect shoppers from slipping. The judge said the store had done ever-thing necessary to protect Sue.
Next Case!
The judge found that child support is the right of the child if that child qualifies as a child of the marriage. The "Divorce Act" defines a child of the marriage as a child of two former spouses who is under the age of majority and has not withdrawn from their charge or is the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability, or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or obtain the necessaries of life. The judge was satisfied that in the circumstances Richard continued to qualify as a child of the marriage because he accepted that Richard was trying to continue his education. The court ordered that Richard provide proof of his registration at university and that Helen's continued obligation to pay child support is contingent upon his attending university and remaining in full-time attendance at university.
Next Case!
The judge found that Joe had no legal obligation to support his daughter once the daughter was made a permanent ward of the state. However, just because she was a permanent ward did not affect her rights in respect of her father's estate. The court found that Joe had a moral obligation and that his decision to disinherit the daughter failed to meet his moral obligation to her/ The judge ordered a lump sum of $150,000.00 to be paid from the estate for the benefit of Cassie.
Next Case!
Henry's best argument was a line of cases that say where a volunteer thinks someone is in danger and tries to rescue them, he can sue for injuries be receives as a result. Unfortunately for Henry in this case, the judge decided that principle "rescuer" cases do not extend to cover property damage. Henry's case was dismissed.
Next Case!
Case No. 6 - Sam the Snowmobiler
Lois succeeded 100%. Sam should have properly appreciated her inexperience and slowed down when she expressed her concern. He also should have given her better advice about footwear so as to protect herself in precisely the circumstances that occurred.
Next Case!
Case No. 7 - A Deal is a Deal?
The Judge found that the adjuster, Sam, had offered medical advice to Billy. Billy was not just any injured person but in fact was ignorant of his rights and vulnerable to Sam's persuasion. The Judge held that the Agreement signed by Billy was substantially unfair and put it aside. Billy was thus able to pursue his claim in spite of the signed Release and Goliath had to pay.
Next Case!
In this case, Tilly's vehicle was used by a limited number of people and hence the private road she was on was not a "highway" within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act. She therefore had a duty to yield to Dan's vehicle and was close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. She was 100% responsible for the collision.
Next Case!
The judge ruled that Ian was 85% responsible for the accident and ordered ICBC to pay Carrie damages for the injuries that she suffered. Although Carrie was not supposed to be cycling in the crosswalk area, Ian should have expected that someone would be using the crosswalk. As such, he should have taken extreme care and maintained a vigilant lookout for those who might be in the crosswalk. There was no excuse for him not to have seen Carrie. On the other hand, the judge felt that Carrie should also bear some of the blame for her injuries as she was riding where she was not permitted to ride, and was not wearing her helmet. Had she been wearing her helmet, her injuries would not have been as serious as they were. Her damage award was reduced accordingly.
Next Case!
Case No. 10 - A Free Ride with a Catch!
The court decided that Ian and Carrie should share responsibility for this accident and held each 50% liable. Carrie, if she had kept a proper lookout, would have seen Ian on the sidewalk at the end of her driveway. On the other hand, Ian, if he were not as intoxicated as he was, would not have fallen, would have seen Carrie backing down the driveway toward him much sooner and would have been able to get out of the way.
Next Case!
Case No. 11 - A Question of Ownership!
The crown prosecutor said this was a clear cut case of theft, where someone is caught red-handed with a bucket of balls, standing in a lake on the golf course in the early hours of the morning wearing a wetsuit with a friend diving for golf balls. The judge considered the matter carefully. Theft is taking possession of another's property and intending to deprive the owner of his property. Here, there was a question of who owned the golf balls. No owners were named. There was only one golf ball with a distinctive mark on it that showed it belonged to the club. Was the distinctive ball used by a golfer and did that golfer steal the golf course's ball? Was Zorro stealing from the thief who had taken the club's ball? The court held that there might be evidence of Zorro being in possession of stolen property and there might have been evidence of trespass. But these were not the chargers before the court. Zorro might have been a thief but he did not steal from the golf course. The court ordered Zorro to return the golf ball with the distinctive mark to the golf course and dismissed the charge of theft.
Next Case!
Case No. 12 - HARRY'S HAZZARD!
Patrolman Paul was very badly injured but had to bear part of the responsibility for those injuries. He was held 40% at fault, mainly because with a little extra caution, he could have avoided the collision completely by pausing to check oncoming traffic in the fourth lane. Harry was 60% at fault because, even though he hadn't seen the flashing lights or heard the siren, he should have suspected a problem because three out of four traffic lanes were stopped, even though they had a green light.
Next Case!
Case No. 13 - STEP PARENT MAINTENANCE!
The judge agreed with Ronald. In reaching his decision, the Judge concluded that in British Columbia the Court retains discretion as to what is an appropriate order for child support after consideration of all of the circumstances and the factors set out in the applicable legislation. In this case, the Judge considered several factors to be particularly relevant, including the parties' pattern of serial relationships, the primary obligation of the biological parents for the support of their children, Ronald's contribution to date to the support of the children, the absence of any continuing relationship between Ronald and the children, and the children's present needs. The case is noteworthy in that prior to this decision, it was often presumed that a stepparent's obligation to pay child support was identical in all respects to that of a biological parent, and would not terminate until the child was no longer eligible for maintenance under the applicable statute.
Next Case!
Case No. 14 - UNLUCKY LOGGERS!
The judge accepted that both drivers had indeed radioed their positions as they traveled the road, but that for whatever reason, they did not make radio contact as one would have expected. As such, she could not decide the case on that basis. However, she decided the case based on the Motor Vehicle Act, which requires a driver to use due care and attention, with reasonable consideration for others on the road, and to drive at a speed that is safe in the circumstances. She held the parties equally responsible for the accident. Both parties had been traveling too fast for road conditions, so neither could avoid the accident as Gary came around the corner. She noted that even though Larry's speed was only 35 km/h, it was still excessive, considering the narrow road and the width and weight of his truck.
Next Case!
Case No. 15 - INTERSECTION MAYHEM!
The judge that first heard the case found that Bumper Barry was 100% at fault for Poor Penny's injuries. However, an appeal court had a second look at the accident and decided that Lefty Larry and Bumper Barry equally shared the blame for the accident. The judges made this decision based on the "but for test": but for the negligence of both Larry and Barry, the accident would not have happened. If Lefty Larry had not stopped so suddenly, Bumper Barry would not have rear-ended Penny.
Next Case!
The court held the ranch fully responsible for Neil's injuries. This was the first time that Jane had led a novice trail ride and she failed to take reasonable precautions for Neil's safety. Before the ride, she did not property instruct the riders about the hazards of trail riding, nor about trail riding etiquette and safety. During the ride, she did not lead the pack as she should have and could not, therefore, control the speed of the other horses. she also did not ensure the safe stowing of Neil's jacket, though she was aware of the potential hazard that it created. Neil was not held in any way responsible for his injuries, as he had fully disclosed that he was a novice rider and was simply not well-instructed nor monitored before and during the ride. the court also noted that Neil did not sign a waiver of liability form prior to the ride.
Next Case!
Case No. 17 - DON'T DRINK & DRIVE!
Courts have determined that, unlike commercial hosts, social hosts do not have the same relationship with the general public that requires they take protective measures. Social hosts are not regulated, do not have the capacity to monitor consumption, and do not have contractual relationships with people imbibing on their property. The court concluded that, on the facts, the necessary connection between the social hosts and highway users was not established as the injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. Even if a collision could be reasonably foreseeable, there is a reluctance to hold parties accountable for failures to act, as opposed to holding people accountable for injuries resulting from their actions. The Court described three situations where a relationship can be created that gives rise to a duty on a party to act to ensure the safety of others. The first is when others are invited to engage in a risk under the defendant's control, i.e. rafting companies. The second is relationships of supervision and control, such as teacher-student interaction where the dominant party exercises control. The third is when parties engage in public functions or commercial enterprise (the pub). The Court found that the activities of a social host did not fall into any of the categories. Holding a private party where alcohol is consumed is not enough to implicate the hosts in the creation of risks thereby compelling them to take action to protect third parties.
Next Case!
Case No. 18 - EXPERIMENT GONE AWRY
The Judge agreed that if the question were merely whether there had been informed consent or not, he would have decided the matter in Lenny's favour. The Judge did not accept Lenny's argument about the burden of proof. He indicated that if there some evidence to refute Lenny's claim then he has to prove on balance that the use of the spacers caused his present condition In the face of some evidence to the contrary the judge held that it was not shown that the use of the spacers caused the problem that resulted in Lenny's subsequent back surgery. Lenny's claim was dismissed.
Next Case!
The judge refused to make the order requested. An application for an order to change guardianship solely to qualify a student to register in a school system should not be granted. The guardian or guardians of a child normally have the full bundle of rights and responsibilities relating to a child as those that naturally arise from parenthood, unless limited in some fashion by statute or order of the Court. The "best interests of children" are the paramount consideration in granting a guardianship order. As such its importance cannot be overstated and an order to change guardianship solely for the sake of convenience should not be granted. Absent evidence of further compelling reasons, the judge could not determine whether the order requested would meet the test of being in the best interests of the child.