Stephen Gibson and Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein successfully represented firefighter Aaron Gelowitz who suffered catastrophic injuries when he struck his head on a submerged tree stump after diving from shore into Williamson Lake. Mr. Gelowitz fractured his C6 vertebra and suffered an associated spinal cord injury. The claim alleged that the City of Revelstoke was partially liable for Mr. Gelowitz’s injuries. Among other things, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Sayn-Wittgenstein argued that the city failed to appropriately place and properly maintain signage warning against diving and advising of underwater hazards at the site where the accident occurred. Further, they argued that the city owed a duty of care to park users to warn of hazards associated with the use of park facilities, including hazards associated with water activities in the lake. After weighing the evidence, the court held that the city was negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to protect Mr. Gelowitz’s safety and should have done more. Justice Horsman found the city 35% liable for the injuries. The case is being appealed by the City with a hearing set for the fall of 2022.

Read the case: Gelowitz v. Revelstoke (City), 2022 BCSC 46

Media coverage of the case can be viewed at the links below.

Global News: Revelstoke 35% to blame after firefighter injured in lake dive, court finds

Surrey Now-Leader: Revelstoke found partly responsible in dive that left Surrey firefighter injured: lawsuit

Revelstoke Review: Man suing city, resort after diving incident resulting in serious injury

Infotel: Judge finds Revelstoke partly at blame after tourist seriously injured diving into lake

Canadian Underwriter: The case for tracking your risk advice

Scott Stanley and Stephen Gibson successfully represented the Plaintiff at trial. The Plaintiff was a lawyer who had the misfortune of being injured in multiple car accidents. The Plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $446,000.

Kevin Gourlay  and Stephen Gibson acted for a plaintiff who suffered persistent cognitive symptoms arising from a concussion / mild traumatic brain injury suffered in a 2014 motor vehicle accident. The defence disputed the nature of her injury and suggested it would only have a minimal impact on her ability to earn income. Counsel led evidence from family doctors, a physiatrist, a neuropsychologist, a physiatrist, a psychologist, and an occupational therapist in order to prove her injuries. The Court awarded the plaintiff damages of $428,272, including $140,000 for pain and suffering, $170,000 for lost future earning capacity, and $30,627 for future care.

Stephen Gibson and Scott Stanley acted for the plaintiff who had his ICBC claim dismissed as a result of the negligence of another lawyer at another firm. They were successful at trial, and the plaintiff was awarded damages of $175,000 against his former lawyer. Before coming to Stephen and Scott, the plaintiff had consulted with 46 lawyers who all refused to take the case. This is an example of the lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP taking the necessary steps, that other lawyers cannot do or will not take, when it is in best interests of an injured person.

Stephen Gibson, Scott Stanley, and Brandon Souza acted for the plaintiff who suffered a traumatic brain injury and a spinal cord injury that rendered her an incomplete quadriplegic. The plaintiff, an engineer, was driving across train tracks at a passive crossing when a train collided with the right side of her vehicle. The court found that Canadian National Railway Company was aware of insufficient sight lines and the dangerous nature of the specific railway crossing for many years prior to the accident and took no actions to ameliorate those risks. Despite the Plaintiff’s failure to stop at a stop sign at the railway crossing, Canadian National Railway Company was still found 60% at fault for the accident. The court awarded approximately $3,200,000 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.

Stephen Gibson and Irina Kordic represented the Plaintiff who was an injured pedestrian. In this case, the Defendant drove down a quiet, residential street, intending to pick up the Plaintiff who was standing in the middle of the road. As the Defendant drove towards the Plaintiff, he ultimately and unintentionally struck the Plaintiff with his vehicle. Liability was denied and the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune for standing in the middle of the road. Liability was found in favour of the Plaintiff 100% because he reasonably expected the Defendant to stop short of where the Plaintiff was standing. The Plaintiff was likely to require a total knee replacement in his later years as a result of advancing arthritis, but he was retraining in a new profession as a sound engineer. The damages were awarded at $1,196,000.

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.