Recent personal injury claim obtains a judgment of approximately $2.5 million.
Senior personal injury partner, Mike Yawney, took this claim to a month long trial in January 2014, with judgment being rendered in May 2014. It involved an 18 year old young male Plaintiff from Salmon Arm who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury while riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle being operated by his friend. Complicating factors were that the Plaintiff had just graduated from high school about 4 months prior to the accident and had not yet embarked on a specific career path. In addition, the Plaintiff appeared to be functioning well in the months after the accident and so the extent of the damage to his brain and his ability to function was also an issue.
Severe traumatic brain injuries are complex injuries to assess and quantify in terms of damages. Mr. Yawney and his personal injury team, including legal assistants and paralegals, spent 3 years putting the claim together, which involved multiple medical assessments with follow up, as well as team meetings with rehabilitation personnel, and in home meetings with the Plaintiff to monitor his ongoing progress and functioning. A range of different experts were retained from medical specialists in neurology, neuropsychology, physiatry and neurosurgery, to future care/rehab experts and economists to help assess the income losses suffered by the Plaintiff if he was unable to work.
After a hard fought, month long trial, we obtained judgment for the client of approximately $2.5 million and then negotiated the balance of other heads of damage to be determined. The claim in total was worth more than the available insurance limits. The result was well in excess of what the Defence offered on the claim prior to trial and represents the maximum amount the Plaintiff could have recovered, other than trying to take steps to recover anything in excess against the Defendant who caused the accident. The damages included $650,000.00 for future care, $1.8 million for future income loss, as well as $235,000.00 for pain and suffering and close to $100,000.00 in past income loss. There were also modest in-trust awards for the Plaintiff’s mother and girlfriend who had assisted him since the motor vehicle accident.
This claim is an example of how the skill and expertise of Nixon Wenger’s personal injury team was able to assist a client whose life was irreparably changed by a motor vehicle accident. With a severe traumatic brain injury claim, having the skill and expertise to recognize what needs to be done and most importantly, in managing the Plaintiff’s needs up to and through the point of trial, requires an expert legal team. Being prepared to go to trial and having the skill and expertise to back that up is how these claims are successfully concluded.
Click here to read the Court Decision.
Click here to read the Supplemental Reasons (cost of care).
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2014-07-22 00:00:002014-07-22 00:00:00Hermanson v. Durkee
The Plaintiff, Mr. Dandell, while taking a shortcut to class, walked down a steep hill, slipped, fell and broke his ankle. As this was a common shortcut, Mr. Dandell suggested that the University should have been more careful about it and taken steps to ensure that it was in fact safe for him and others who use the shortcut.
The Plaintiff relied upon the supreme Court of Canada decision in Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 SCR 456, for the proposition that the University had to keep the premises safe, particularly routes that were known to be commonly used.
We successfully argued that the proposition was not that broad. The University had a policy in place and did in fact do a good job of keeping the sidewalks clean and safe and that the Waldick decision and the Occupiers Liability Act required that the University take reasonable steps, but not take every possible step to ensure the safety of people attending.
The Court of Appeal agreed with our contention and the appeal was dismissed.
Click here to read the Court Decision.
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2013-11-19 00:00:002013-11-19 00:00:00Dandell v. Thompson Rivers University, BC Court of Appeal
Senior Litigation Partner Mike Yawney took this claim to trial in March of 2013. The Plaintiff was a back seat passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant was driving too fast for the road conditions and an accident occurred, including a fatality (one of the Plaintiff’s friends). The defendant denied liability for the accident and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for the serious injuries he suffered, which included a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and a displaced fracture in his cervical spine.
Mike was retained shortly after the accident occurred. In pursuing the claim for the Plaintif, accident reconstruction engineers were retained to assist in understanding how the accident occurred. Multiple medical specialists and experts were also retained to assist the Plaintiff in maximizing his recovery from his injuries and to assess the long term consequences of the accident and injuries on his life. As a result of his injuries, the Plaintiff, a young man, was unable to return to his carpentry career path, which had a profound impact on his income earning ability given the 40 plus years of working life he had ahead of him. This was the most significant part of the Plaintiff’s claim given his age and how it impacted his future prospects. The defendant and his insurer refused to acknowledge responsibility for this loss and attempted to suggest that the Plaintiff was fine and was capable of working just as he had before, despite more than one attempt to return to his old job. Vocational and economist experts were retained to assist in understanding this loss and with quantifying it. The trial proceeded before Mr. Justice Steeves in March of 2013 and judgment was rendered on June 26, 2013. Additional judgment reasons were issued separately regarding future care damages the Plaintiff was entitled to.
After a hard fought two week trial and further submissions post judgment on the issue of future care, Mr. Yawney and his team were successful in obtaining judgment against the defendant in excess of $2.2 million.
Click here to Read the Court Decision.
Click here to Read Supplementary Reasons (Cost of Care)
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2013-06-26 00:00:002013-06-26 00:00:00McCluskey v. Desilets
The Plaintiff, Mr. Morrison, purchased a property on Shuswap Lake in 1993. The property was subject to an easement which allowed the neighbours, the VanDenTillaarts, to cross Mr. Morrison’s property to access their own property. The easement was L shaped and ran from the railroad tracks down to the water and across the front of Mr. Morrison’s property.
In or about 2006, Mr. VanDenTillaart became aware of some surveying anomalies that suggested that the property line was in fact located about 100 feet into the VanDenTillaart property. It was also alleged that the easement did not line up with the railway crossing. The 100 feet in question encompassed the VanDenTillaarts’ cottage and half their garage. Mr. Morrison notified the VanDenTillaarts that they were trespassing and required that they move.
The VanDenTillaarts retained William Maddox, a British Columbia Land Surveyor, to investigate. Mr. Maddox, during the course of his investigation, discovered that there were serious measurement errors in the original plan. He then undertook an investigation interviewing prior owners who stated that they had seen the property line pins in place. Mr. Maddox found an iron pin leaning against a tree. He excavated in that area and discovered a hole into which the iron pin fit. Accordingly, he re-established the property line.
At Trial, it was established that the original plan was in fact faulty and it was determined that the property line was, as established by Mr. Maddox, correct and that the easement ran over the crossing, down to the water, and then at right angles to the VanDenTillaarts’ property.
Mr. Morrison appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the Trial decision and dismissed the appeal.
Click here to read the Court Decision.
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2013-01-28 00:00:002013-01-28 00:00:00Morrison v. Van Den Tillaart, BC Court of Appeal
The plaintiff, Jason Sean Nadeau, was injured on July 1st, 2005, when he was struck by a motor vehicle. He was attending a music concert at an outdoor venue called The Bluffs. Click here to read the Court Decision.
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2013-01-15 00:00:002013-01-15 00:00:00Nadeau v. Okanagan Urban Youth & Cultural Assn., 2013 BCSC 55
Chris Hart acted as lead counsel for the Appellant, Ralph Tannis, in an appeal contesting a Small Claims Court ruling in favor of 2066209 Ontario Inc. (“numbered company”) which awarded damages against Mr. Tannis, personally. The Ontario Divisional Court agreed with Mr. Tannis’ arguments and set aside the judgment as against Mr. Tannis.
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00Tara Holowachhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngTara Holowach2013-01-10 14:06:102022-11-15 09:58:142066209 Ontario Inc. v. Ralph Tannis, 2012 ONSC 6665:
Kelvin Beagle was injured in a car accident on July 8, 2007. The defendants have admitted liability; at issue is the assessment of damages. Counsel for the plaintill was Partner, Michael Yawney. Click here to read the Court Decision.
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2012-12-19 00:00:002022-08-17 09:48:43Beagle v. Cornelson
On February 9, 2009, the plaintiff fell and broke his leg while on the premises of the defendant. He sued, alleging that the defendant was negligent and in breach of its duties as an occupier. Click here to read the Court Decision.
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2012-12-13 00:00:002012-12-13 00:00:00Dandell v. Thompson Rivers University, Supreme Court of BC
Mr. Morrison and the Van Den Tillaarts are neighbours along the shore of the Shuswap Lake near Canoe, British Columbia. Mr. Morrison bought his land in 1993 and assumed that the boundary line ran alongside a cabin of the adjoining lot.
Click here to read the Court Decision.
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png00NW Adminhttps://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.pngNW Admin2012-02-10 00:00:002012-02-10 00:00:00Morrison v. Van Den Tillaart, Supreme Court of BC
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Google Analytics Cookies
These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.
If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Other cookies
The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.