![]() (f) she sat in an area of the vehicle where she knew there were no seatbelts and, (e) over the course of the night in question, she had several opportunities to remove herself from the situation but did not do so (d) the vehicle had more occupants in it than it was designed to carry (c) Ms. Chiarot had more passengers in the vehicle than was allowed by her novice licence ![]() (b) Ms. Chiarot had been drinking, contrary to her novice licence In assessing Ms. Wormald’s contributory negligence, the Court has considered that she knew that: Justice Funt provided the following reasons: The Court assessed damages for the Plaintiff’s scars, bruises, scrapes and cuts at $8,000 and then reduced these by 40% due to the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence. The Plaintiff’s claim was largely rejected with the Court noting that the Plaintiff’s evidence was not entirely reliable. The Plaintiff sued for damages arguing she suffered serious injuries and sought approximately $250,000 in damages. The vehicle’s passengers encouraged the driver to speed, who did so and ultimately lost control of the vehicle, rolling several times coming to a stop in a ditch. ![]() The Defendant had a Novice licence and had 9 passengers in her vehicle ‘far exceeding its designed capacity’. ![]() Chiarot) the Plaintiff was 15 year old passenger in the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the collision. Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, largely rejecting a personal injury claim from a Plaintiff who sustained modest injuries in a 2009 roll-over collision. #Particulars of negligence road traffic accident update#Update Octo– Today the BC Court of Appeal overturned the finding of contributory negligence but otherwise left intact the trial reasons rejecting much of the Plaintiff’s claim ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |