Jeff Nieuwenburg acted for the plaintiff on an appeal regarding a finding of contributory negligence on her part and failure to mitigate her damages. The appeal was successful in part with the court finding there was no evidence that the plaintiff failed to follow a treatment, that would have decreased her damages and the failure to mitigate finding was set aside. In the result, this meant that the plaintiff was entitled to recoup the 75% reduction that had been applied to her damages award for failure to mitigate.

Jeffrey Nieuwenburg acted for the plaintiff on an application by the plaintiff for production of documents from the defendant which include liability documents, privileged documents from its list of documents, and an affidavit of documents. The plaintiff also sought costs. There was a 15-day jury trial in this matter scheduled for February 2018.

Scott Stanley, Brian Brooke and Jeff Nieuwenberg acted for the plaintiff who alleged that the defendant municipality was negligent in its winter maintenance of the road where the accident that injured the plaintiff had occurred. The plaintiff claimed her injuries disabled her from working and most activities of daily living. While the Jury found the parties shared liability it awarded the plaintiff damages of $3,576,600. The Jury also found the plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages. The plaintiff later appealed and was partly successful in that the BC Court of Appeal set aside the Jury finding that she had failed to mitigate her damages (see: Rhodes v. Surrey (City), 2016 BCSC 1880).

Brian Brooke, J. Scott Stanley, and Jeffrey Nieuwenburg were co-counsel for the plaintiff who was awarded $790,000 in damages as compensation for suffering a significant brain injury . The injury was the result of a shove in retaliation for the Plaintiff teasing the Defendant in the aftermath of a bachelor party. The BC court reviewed the law regarding liability in connection with stag parties and in the result awarded the firm’s client $790,000 in damages.

Stephen Gibson represented the Plaintiff who was injured by a slide tackle during a recreational soccer game, by an unregistered, unidentified player from the opposing team. The rules of the game were stipulated in the registration documentation, which provided for a non-contact and no-slide tackling rule, which was unlike normal FIFA rules. The primary issue during the summary trial was whether the Defendants owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, whether the Defendants fell below the standard of care, and whether the Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the Defendants’ acts. The court ruled that the Plaintiff was sufficiently proximate to the Defendants to be owed a duty of care, that the Defendants fell below the standard of care by not ensuring all players were familiar with the modified rules of the game, and that the failure to inform all players of the modified rules, caused the unidentified player to slide tackle the Plaintiff. The Defendants were found to be 100% liable for the Plaintiff’s damages.

Scott Stanley and Irina Kordic acted for the Plaintiff in this proceeding involving an eye injury that occurred on September 12, 2007. The Plaintiff was helping the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, with some renovations on her home and was being assisted by her adult autistic son, Kyle Alexander Keyes. The Plaintiff was not wearing safety glasses; knew the son was autistic; and asked the son to assist him.

The son was holding a board for the Plaintiff and moved unexpectedly while the Plaintiff was about to strike the board with a hammer. This caused the Plaintiff’s hammer to strike another piece of metal which resulted in a metal splinter entering the Plaintiff’s eye and the eventual loss of this eye.

The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, was liable for permitting her autistic son to work with the Plaintiff and for failing to warn him about the dangers of working with her autistic son.

The case went to trial on May 30, 2011 and was heard by a Judge and Jury. The jury found that the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, was 20% liable for the injuries to Mr. Laurie.

Joe Murphy, K.C. represented the plaintiff who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury at a night club. The plaintiff had been about to start a legal career at the time of the accident. The court awarded $5,934,712 for the loss of a career that ended before it began.

Scott Stanley successfully acted for the estate of a deceased women against her insurance broker. The deceased had been involved in an acrimonious divorce with her husband who lured her to their former home and murdered her before setting fire to the home and committing suicide. The insurance company properly denied the claim on the basis that it does not cover intentional acts. Scott achieved a partial settlement from the insurance company and successfully sued the insurance broker for the balance of $160,000. Scott convinced the Court that the insurance broker should have recommended to the deceased that she change her policy so that she would be protected if her former husband did intentional acts against the property. This case is one of the leading cases in British Columbia dealing with the negligence of insurance brokers.

Stephen Gibson and Irina Kordic represented the Plaintiff who was 6 years old when he was struck by a motor vehicle and suffered a traumatic brain injury. Eight years after the accident, the Plaintiff’s mother sought assistance from the Defendant for medical benefits. The benefits were denied on the basis that the limitation period expired 2 years after the last payment made by I.C.B.C., despite the Plaintiff being a minor when the limitation expired. The Plaintiff alleged negligence against the adjuster, and bad faith against I.C.B.C. The Plaintiff was successful on a summary trial application by the Defendant to strike the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Plaintiff’s claims would not be struck, and that they were permitted to proceed to trial on the basis that it was not plain and obvious that the Plaintiff was owed a duty of care to be informed of a lapsing limitation, or that the limitation date had expired. This was a novel finding of law in the area of potential negligence by an insurance adjuster in administering first party claims.