HALLER v. GALEY

Jury Trial Conducted by James Cotter and Ryan Irving, December 2015

Our client, Mr. Haller, was 62 years old at the time he was injured in a high speed, rear-end motor vehicle accident. Following the accident, he suffered from a significant neck injury and debilitating headaches, as well as problems with balance and vertigo, requiring him to use a cane. At the time he was a logging truck driver who had taken time off of work for treatment of cancer. Mr. Haller intended to return to work in his chosen profession once he had finished his treatments. He had been driving a logging truck for nearly 40 years, and had no intention of retiring any time soon.

ICBC was the insurer for the Defendant Galey, who hit Mr. Haller’s vehicle from behind. ICBC took the position that Mr. Haller was not going to return to work as a logging truck driver even if the accident had not occurred, as he was fighting cancer, he had diabetes, and he was too old. ICBC took this position despite the fact that Mr. Haller had evidence supporting the fact that he had worked all of his life, and that he wanted to continue working, and he did not have limitations to working prior to the accident. This was supported by his medical records, his financial records and his co-workers and friends.

ICBC set the matter down to be heard in front of a jury. James Cotter, a senior litigation partner at Nixon Wenger LLP and Ryan Irving, a litigation associate, conducted the trial on behalf of Mr. Haller. At the trial, the Defense argued that any continued problems that Mr. Haller had with regard to being unable to work related to his diabetes rather than injuries suffered in a high speed accident. Cotter and Irving obtained expert opinion evidence from a medical doctor with specialty in physical medicine and rehabilitation, as well as a doctor with a specialty in ear, nose and throat conditions (primarily balance related issues). Both of these medical experts provided opinions that Mr. Haller’s chronic, debilitating neck pain, headaches, and balance issues all stemmed from the trauma due to the accident. The Defense retained its own expert, who had the unique opinion that the accident was not a contributing factor for Mr. Haller’s current disability, rather it was his diabetes that was causing balance issues, which prevented him from working.

After a week-long trial, the jury verdict came back largely in agreement with Mr. Cotter’s submissions regarding Mr. Haller’s claim. The verdict was a fair result, which was far more than what ICBC had offered. The jury believed Mr. Haller and his medical experts in regard to his injuries and his intention to keep working. They did not accept the Defendant’s argument that he was too old or that his diabetes was preventing him from driving his logging truck. It was a just result for Mr. Haller, who showed courage to take this matter to a trial in the face of ICBC’s low offer. The jury applied common sense and arrived at a fair result.

Mr. Cotter represents a young lady injured in a motor vehicle accident where her main injury is a chronic whip lash injury to her neck.  This claimant was only 17 years old when it happened, and she is still recovering from the injury, such that it is unclear as to her degree of recovery.  Even though the claim had just been started, the ICBC lawyer demanded particulars relating to this young lady’s past wage loss and her claim for wage loss in general.  Despite being advised that this type of information was premature, ICBC proceeded with its application seeking this information and also seeking costs personally against Mr. Cotter.  The Master who heard the application dismissed ICBC’s application for particulars and ordered costs against them.  In essence, the application for particulars was deemed to be premature, and the tactic of seeking costs personally against a claimant’s lawyer was deemed to be inappropriate.

Click here to read the Court Decision.

Mike Yawney, senior personal injury litigation partner, and associate Ryan Irving, took this claim to trial.  The Plaintiff, Mr. Dunbar,  had been injured in a head on collision on Hwy 97 near Salmon Arm, B.C. on July 6, 2011. He was a tradesperson and was on his way to work when the accident occurred. He suffered neck, back and hip injuries as a result of the accident. Due to his stoic nature and the financial needs of his family (he had a wife and child to support), he went back to work shortly after the accident and toughed it out until his back gave out about 14 months later. The medical evidence supported that his back and other problems were caused by the accident, and despite the fact that his income had gone up after the accident, that he was entitled to compensation for past and future income loss due to his injuries. He also recovered damages for pain and suffering, as well as for future care needs and out of pockets expenses.

The defendants took the position that the Plaintiff had recovered from his injuries in the accident and argued that his damages were limited. In a hard fought two week trial, the trial judge awarded a total of $670,000.00 in damages, plus legal costs, to the Plaintiff. The evidence and argument presented by Mr. Yawney and Mr. Irving, including the medical evidence of multiple experts, succeeded in persuading the Court that the Plaintiff was entitled to substantial compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident and for the long term impact it would have on his life.