- Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein
- Bill Dick, Q.C.
- Brandon Souza
- Brian Brooke
- Irina Kordic
- J. Scott Stanley
- Jeffrey J. Nieuwenburg
- Joe Battista, Q.C.
- Joe Murphy, Q.C.
- John M. Cameron
- Keri Grenier
- Kevin Gourlay
- Kevin Hyde
- Leyna R. Roenspies
- Matthew W. Van Nostrand
- Mike Murphy
- Paul J. Bosco
- Stephen Gibson
- Tara Chandler
- Veronica Medved
- Back and Spinal Cord Injuries
- Car Accidents
- Motor Vehicle Accidents - ICBC Injury Claims
- Brain and Head Injuries
- Chronic Pain
- Injury Claims
- Burn Injuries
- Psychological Injuries
- Denied Claims
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Orthopaedic Injuries
- General Negligence
- Slip and Fall Injuries
- Insurance Disputes
- Bike Accidents
- Medical Malpractice
Our Success at Trial Benefits All Our Clients*
We are experienced trial lawyers with a proven track record of success.
A selection of personal injury and insurance cases* where our lawyers have successfully helped clients are listed below.
*Disclaimer: The outcome of every legal proceeding will vary according to the facts and unique circumstances in each individual case. References to successful case results where the lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP have acted for clients are not necessarily a guarantee or indicative of future results.
J. Scott Stanley
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.
Scott Stanley and Paul Bosco represented a young woman who was the victim of horrible burns following an explosion at a backyard fire pit. The tenant poured a bucket of used motor oil on the fire, causing it to explode. The landlord, who happened to be the City of Burnaby, had been warned the tenant had fires in the past, which was contrary to their own bylaw prohibiting open fires, but did nothing about this. In the course of a month-long jury trial, the court accepted the arguments of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Bosco that (1) a duty of care was owed by the landlord to the victim, a visitor to the premises, (2) it was impossible for the victim to be found at all at fault for the incident and her injuries, and (3) only basic factual questions should be put to the jury for consideration. The jury ultimately awarded the victim a total of $4.56 million.
Scott Stanley acted for the plaintiff in this case involved physical and psychological injuries sustained by a 49 year-old pedestrian on a sidewalk when a driver lost control while attempting to park, drove onto the sidewalk, and pinned the pedestrian against a wall. The pedestrian required three surgeries and had significant limitations with work as a teaching assistant and day-to-day living. The court awarded $1,064,682.07.
Scott Stanley was co-counsel in defending a plaintiff against an appeal of a successful judgment of $515,057 which was awarded to the plaintiff for soft tissue injuries and chronic pain. The Defendants challenged the awards for past and future loss of earning capacity arguing these could not be justified on the facts and were not adequately explained in the reasons for judgment by the trial judge. The BC Court of appeal dismissed the appeal and let the judgment stand.
Scott Stanley represented the Plaintiff in this proceeding involved motor vehicle accidents that occurred on March 9, 2010 and December 7, 2013. Liability was admitted for both accidents.
The Plaintiff alleged that she sustained a neck injury which resulted in headaches and dizziness. While the Plaintiff was able to continue with her work for 3 years, she struggled to do so, and eventually stopped working. The Defendants position was that the Plaintiff sustained only minor injuries and was capable of working claiming that her problems were either exaggerated or not related to the accidents.
The Plaintiff’s case went to trial on April 25, 2016 and was heard by a Judge and Jury. The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $373,600 in damages, essentially accepting every claim that was advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff 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).
This case involved two young girls, who were 15 and 11 at the time of the accident. Both sustained spinal fractures and one was rendered a paraplegic. Both girls were passengers in their mother’s vehicle which was struck by another vehicle that crossed into their lane during a snow storm. The driver that crossed into their lane was found 100% at fault for the accident.
This case involved mild and moderate brain injuries sustained by two passengers when the driver of their vehicle lost control on the highway and crashed into a ditch. The court awarded $943,889.36 and $1,525,404.77, respectively.
- This was an appeal from a finding that a defendant driver was not insured under the insurance policy of a leasing vehicle. The Defendant driver only had a $1 million policy limit with ICBC but the Plaintiff’s damages were $1.6 million. The Plaintiff sought to obtain the additional $600,000 from the insurance policy of the leasing company. The Plaintiff was not successful at trial but succeeded on the appeal.
Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay acted for the plaintiff, an emergency room doctor who sustained a concussion when he was rear-ended by a bus. Sadly, he was among the unlucky and statistically small minority of individuals who suffer long-term disabling symptoms as a result of a concussion. That concussion prevented him from being able to return to the practice of medicine.
Result: After a 29-day trial, he received judgment of just under $6,000,000 for damages, primarily resulting from his lost earning capacity as a doctor.
In this appeal, Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay acted for two homeowners that were denied coverage by their insurance company, Wawanesa, after their house was destroyed by a furnace explosion. Wawanesa took the position that they were not entitled to coverage because the home had been “vacant” for more than 30 days and because they had not notified Wawanesa of a “material change” in circumstances. The homeowners lost at trial with the trial judge upholding Wawanesa’s denial of coverage. Scott and Kevin took the file over after trial and were successful in having the Court of Appeal reverse the trial judge’s finding on the basis of a 1932 Supreme Court of Canada decision that had not been given to the trial judge.
This case involved an emergency room doctor that was injured in a rear-end accident which resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury that prevented him from being able to practice medicine. The trial was scheduled to be heard over 35 days. At issue on this application was whether the defendants were entitled to have the trial heard by a jury rather than a judge sitting alone. We were successful in arguing that the matter was better decided by a judge sitting alone and the court ordered that the defendant’s jury notice be struck. While jury trials can be the best method of determining the parties’ respective rights, a 35-day trial on a non-criminal matter would be very rare and difficult to manage.
The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had cut him off and was responsible for the accident. The defendant also disputed the magnitude of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found that the defendant was responsible for the accident as the plaintiff was established in the lane before being hit by the defendant. The defendant simply failed to see what he ought to have seen: the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff’s evidence that he had suffered soft tissue injuries to his shoulder, neck and back was accepted. Damages of just under $50,000 were awarded, including $42,500 for pain and suffering.
J. 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.
J. Scott Stanley and Irina Kordic acted for the plaintiff in this proceeding involving a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 8, 2003. The Plaintiff was struck from behind by another vehicle and alleged that he sustained a concussion and soft tissue injuries. The Plaintiff alleged that he experienced permanent cognitive and physical symptoms as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.
The Defendant denied that the Plaintiff sustained a concussion and further denied that he had an permanent cognitive or physical symptoms as a result of the accident.
The Plaintiff’s case went to trial on April 14, 2009 and was heard by a Judge and Jury.
The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $638,000 damages.