" IT'S THE LAW"
...excerpts from a column 
written
by our own
Bob Mackay, George Gunnink and Greg Christofferson
let you to be the judge!! .....
__________________________________________
Judges decide the facts based on evidence put forward by lawyers and then apply the law. Here is a fact pattern - how would you decide who was at fault? Fact patterns similar to this one are often presented in court and liability assessed by judges - test your judgment!
_____________________________________________________________
Case
# 1Harvey the Horse - 1 Happy Honda - 0
Suzie Q was driving her Honda with her boyfriend and two children aboard. It was late July and light was fading from dusk to darkness. They were driving along a paved two lane rural road. The moon was up but as they approached an intersection, three trees beside the road made that area almost fully dark. Suzie's car headlights were on. Suddenly, as they approached the intersection, a riderless horse appeared at full gallop. As Suzie stopped, the horse collided with her car on the drivers door, went up over the hood, falling to the ground on the passenger's side. The horse struggled briefly, got up, and fled into the night. Suzie's car suffered a damaged door, windshield post, and shattered windshield. Suzie and her boyfriend suffered whiplash injuries.
Immediately before this incident, Rhonda Rider had been enjoying an evening ride on her horse, Harvey. Rhonda had injured her thumb a year before and it was weak. Harvey was not skittish by nature and had been ridden over this ground many times in all levels of light and dark. This time, as he passed two "blue boxes" placed by the roadside, he began sidestepping. There was a sign and some brush on the off road side of the boxes. Rather than riding him around on the paved portion of the road, Rhonda decided to dismount. There was no traffic. As he approached the boxes, Harvey whirled quickly away, pulling the reigns from Rhonda's hands. He bolted down the road Rhonda, followed calling his name.
Suzie sues Rhonda.
P.S. Harvey injured his hip slightly and suffered some cuts but
is alive, well and still being ridden. The Honda was not so lucky.
As the Judge, what would you decide?.......
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!
Groping for Grapes
Shopper Sue wanted to pick up a few items for her family. She went to a large supermarket where she did not ordinarily shop. Having picked up some apples for her kids' lunches, she then headed toward the meat section to look over some prices. To her left was a display of grapes. As she walked by she inadvertently stepped on a grape, slipped and fell, badly injuring her elbow.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Sue was wearing appropriate footwear, as opposed to high heels or other shoes that might contribute to her fall. The store had not carried out a check of the area for some time. The grape had undoubtedly come from the display, likely dropped by a careless shopper or even, possibly, by an employee. Where Sue fell, grapes were displayed for sale in flats. Customers were expected to buy whole flats of grapes from that location. In another location in the store was a display of grapes in bulk. Customers were expected to pick over the grapes and bag the ones they wanted. In spite of all this, the judge found the store did not have to pay for Sue's injuries. Why not?
...As the Judge, what would you decide?
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!
"CHILD" SUPPORT
Helen and George were married, separated, and then divorced. An Order for child support was made in which they agreed to pay each other child support in accordance with the Guidelines for any child of the marriage in his or her care. There were three children of the marriage including Richard, the oldest. At the time that the Order for child support was made, Richard was attending community college in British Columbia and living with his father. However, a short while later, George moved to Alberta. The parties' youngest son, who had been living with his father, decided to live with his mother. The parties' daughter was already living with Helen. Just before the Christmas break, Richard dropped out of school because he said that he had taken too heavy a course load and was falling behind in his grades. Richard is presently living with his father and is 18 years of age, which is the age of majority in Alberta. Helen makes an application to court to cancel or suspend child support for Richard. Helen said that she was told by Richard that he had no plans to return to school and he intended to move out on his own as soon as he could find full-time work. Richard said he tried to get into university but was late in his application and that he intended to start the next term.
Should the judge grant Helen's application to cancel child support for Richard?
...As the Judge, what would you decide?
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!
CASSIE
Joe had three adult children from his first marriage. Joe got married again and he and his second wife had a daughter, Cassie. Cassie was born with Down's Syndrome and was placed in foster care from birth. Joe was required to make support payments and did so until he lost his job when Cassie was seven years of age. Cassie became a permanent ward of the state when she was 9 years of age. Cassie continued to live with the foster family who had first taken her in but was never adopted. The foster family received an allowance from the Ministry of Social Services to help with Cassie's day to day expenses. Joe died when Cassie was 17 years of age. Joe left a Will and an estate of approximately $550,000.00. By the terms of his Will, Joe left $5,000.00 to each of his four grandchildren and divided the balance of his estate among the three adult children from his first marriage.. Joe's second wife made a claim against the estate under the Wills Variation Act and that claim was settled by consent. A claim was also made on behalf of Cassie.
Should Cassie receive anything from Joe's estate?
...As the Judge, what would you decide?
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!
QUICK RUNNER NABS DRIVER?
Henry Quick was shopping with his wife. Returning to put their groceries in his car, he noticed from across the parking lot that George Driver, trying to park, had scraped the side of his vehicle. With a roar, he dropped his groceries and sprinted across the lot to nab George before he left the scene. Unfortunately, in his haste, he failed to notice a speed bump. Henry tripped and fell heavily, injuring his knee badly. He sued George, arguing that he was only trying to protect his property from a possible hit-and-run. George replied, "Heck, all I did was scrape the side of his car. And I wasn't leaving the scene - I was just parking so I could inspect the damage".
Does Henry get compensation for his pain and suffering and lost income?
...As the Judge, what would you decide?
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!
SAM THE SNOWMOBILER
Sam the snowmobiler offered his friend, Lois, a ride on his snow machine. Lois was nervous and had never been on one before and asked what she should wear for footwear. Sam said "wear lots of socks". Lois did but she wore them inside running shoes. Once they set out, Lois was extremely nervous about the speed as her foot kept bouncing off the footrest but Sam told her not to be a sissy and continued. Lois' foot snagged on something and the machine ran over her ankle causing serious injury. She sued for damages. Sam argued strongly that Lois should have worn boots and that accidents always happen on snowmobiles anyway. Should Lois be partially to blame? As a passenger being treated to a ride by Sam, does she have any rights at all?
...As the Judge, what would you decide?
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!
A DEAL IS A DEAL - OR IS IT?
Young Billy was 19 years of age and had been in a car accident. As far as he knew, he was going to e O.K. soon, so he signed an Agreement with Goliath Insurance. the Agreement was that in return for $2,000.00 he would make no further claim, even if his condition was worse than he thought. Goliath's employee, Sam, was an experienced adjuster and knew there was evidence of more severe injury, which he downplayed. Billy was an adult and knowingly signed a full Release (the Agreement.) It turned out that Billy's condition was more severe than either Billy or Sam thought. Billy sued, arguing that the signed Release should be of no effect.
...As the Judge, what would you decide?
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!
"T" FOR TWO
Trucker Tilley was leaving a ski resort and the private road on which she traveled made a T intersection with a public road. She checked for traffic to her right before exiting onto the public road and was immediately crunched by Driver Dan coming from her left along the road. Tilly told the Judge "look, I entered the intersection and Dan hit me. He was on my left so I had the right of way." Dan argued that he was on the "through" road.
If you were the Judge, would you split liability? If so, who should bear what proportion of the responsibility for the car accident?
...As the Judge, what would you decide?
...now click on the Judge to see what he decided!