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.

2012

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.

On a dark and foggy morning in February, 2007, the plaintiff was hit on Steveston Highway. Because of his serious injuries, our client had no recollection of the accident. The only witnesses were the defendant and his passenger but the passenger sadly passed away shortly after the accident (and unrelated to the accident). The question was whether the defendant driver was partially at fault for hitting the plaintiff who was admittedly dressed in dark clothing and on the highway when the accident occurred. The Court found that the defendant was 50% responsible for the accident. We were able to demonstrate that the defendant was driving too fast for the foggy conditions and that he was driving far too close to the curb in the over-sized curb lane; the side of his vehicle was almost in the gutter and he was driving in an area of the highway where one would routinely see cyclists.

Mr. Cameron represented EJ, a Vancouver police officer, who sustained injuries to his back and neck after his patrol car was rammed by a suspect in a stolen vehicle. EJ’s injuries compromised some of the overtime opportunities available to him in the police. Mr. Cameron represented EJ at trial in BC Supreme Court. Prior to the trial ICBC offered EJ $50,000. EJ was awarded over $120,000 at trial.

The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision. She was ultimately diagnosed with fibromyalgia. At trial she was represented by David Kolb and Mr. Cameron. The trial judge awarded significant damages for diminished earning capacity despite the Plaintiff having been diligent and not missing any work up to the time of trial.
ICBC appealed arguing that the Judge erred in awarding these damages because the judge relied on “common experience that a person with a stable but persistent energy-draining (missing something) ICBC argued that this was speculative and there was no evidence to suggest this is so. While the Plaintiff’s total damages were reduced slightly at the appeal to $475,000, the BC Court of Appeal was quick to dismiss the above argument finding it was simply a matter of common sense that chronic pain takes its toll. In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:[41] Accepting that, to use the expression used at trial and at the hearing of this appeal, Ms. Morlan’s condition had “plateaued”, the fact remains that she would forever suffer from debilitating chronic pain along with headaches, symptoms that could be reduced, but not eliminated, by medication. In other words, throughout each and every day of her life, Ms. Morlan would have to cope with some level of discomfort. In my view, it was open to the trial judge to find—essentially as a matter of common sense—that constant and continuous pain takes its toll and that, over time, such pain will have a detrimental effect on a person’s ability to work, regardless of what accommodations an employer is prepared to make.The Plaintiff was represented at trial by Mr. David Kolb and Mr. Cameron. Her appeal was conducted by Mr. Kolb, Mr. Cameron and senior appeal counsel, Mr. Barry Fraser.

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.

Get Your Life Back

Contact us for a free consultation

  • Disclaimer: The use of the internet or this Form for communication with the firm or its lawyers and staff is not secure and does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Do not send confidential or time-sensitive information through this Form. If you need to send this type of information please call us first.
Or call us at: 1-888-683-9621