Alberta family wins landmark settlement for injuries to fetus - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

HOZ · 12-23-2006, 01:29 AM

Child sures mother and insurance company!

Basically the parents (mother and father ) sued on her behalf her mother and insurance company.

Interesting.

Hemi-Cuda · 12-23-2006, 02:54 AM

so what, they sued themselves? i don't get it

FlamesKickAss · 12-23-2006, 06:43 AM

wow we are changing to the states more and more, thats ridiculous IMO

Displaced Flames fan · 12-23-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

wow we are changing to the states more and more, thats ridiculous IMO

Sorry, but that wouldn't even see a courtroom here. That's nothing like the states.

Burninator · 12-23-2006, 04:03 PM

This is confusing, so if I get my car into an accident and it's my fault does my insurance cover my injuries?

TurnedTheCorner · 12-23-2006, 04:10 PM

I wonder if she was drinking on New Year's Eve before the accident? Imagine drinking while pregnant and before driving. If this was the case, someone should ensure this woman is sterllized.

Resolute 14 · 12-23-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

This is confusing, so if I get my car into an accident and it's my fault does my insurance cover my injuries?

Yup. That's the point of insurance. This is a good decision too. The childs injuries were the result of the accident, so insurance should be paying for her care.

ricosuave · 12-23-2006, 05:35 PM

######ing unbelieveable

longsuffering · 12-23-2006, 06:47 PM

Why the outrage? Now the family is able to properly care for the child who was described in the article as "severely brain-damaged and blind, with cerebral palsy and epilepsy".

It's not like the family has enriched themselves as a result of the accident or lawsuit.

I would hope no one would have a problem with the child receiving the proper care.

To me, it makes little difference whether money for that care comes from the Provincial Government, AHC or an Insurance Company.

TurnedTheCorner · 12-23-2006, 06:53 PM

Suing yourself for negligence doesn't sit right with me, I guess. Not to mention it will likely drive up insurance rates as they pass this down to consumers.

I guess I'm mostly amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid accepting personal responsibility. It's not the insurance company's fault for not covering an unborn fetus in its policy. The accident, and this child's resulting disadvantages and difficulties, is completely the mother's fault. And it sounds like she's benefiting because of it.

longsuffering · 12-23-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I guess I'm mostly amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid accepting personal responsibility. It's not the insurance company's fault for not covering an unborn fetus in its policy. The accident, and this child's resulting disadvantages and difficulties, is completely the mother's fault. And it sounds like she's benefiting because of it.

You're not wrong, but should the child suffer as a result?

CaramonLS · 12-23-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Suing yourself for negligence doesn't sit right with me, I guess. Not to mention it will likely drive up insurance rates as they pass this down to consumers.

I guess I'm mostly amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid accepting personal responsibility. It's not the insurance company's fault for not covering an unborn fetus in its policy. The accident, and this child's resulting disadvantages and difficulties, is completely the mother's fault. And it sounds like she's benefiting because of it.

That isn't the point at all. The insurance company is supposed to cover all damages in the case of an accident, including personal injury and medical treatments.

I don't think the mother is really benefiting from this either. Would you have the same type of concern if her insurance company didn't want to pay for physio because the accident was 'her fault'? That is the entire point of insurance.

And in particular because it is in Alberta, I hope she bleeds her Auto insurance company dry. God knows they've been doing it to me for years.

TurnedTheCorner · 12-23-2006, 07:32 PM

I guess the question of whether the fetus is a person or not won't be brought up because of the settlement - and that's good, because that's not the part of this I have the problem. And I think the child is likely suffering anyway, even the insurance company is now paying for the care.

The mother should be responsible for paying for the care, but managed to find some way to transfer this burden. It seems to me to be more like a case shirking her problems that she brought on herself, then the right or just thing being done.

I hear you about the insurance companies though, they have been sticking it to people for years.

And I wish I knew what she was doing in the car, and what she had done prior to being in the car, on December 31. That being unsaid is a lot of what's getting my back up, but I suppose it shouldn't. Because I'm jumping to conclusions.

I get ****ed off when people who don't have renters insurance lose things in a fire or something as well. Who can't afford this, given the alternative? Again, it's more a hot button issue for me because these problems are being brought on by the individuals, then the individuals look anywhere else for an out instead of looking in the mirror.

killer_carlson · 12-24-2006, 11:31 PM

Lets try and clear a few things up on this one.

If you are riding as a passenger in a car with someone and you crash. You get hurt. The Court determines who is liable for the crash and you are able to recover compensation for your injury. If the liable party is the person in the other vehicle, then their insurance pays. If the liable party is the driver of the vehicle you were in (say they hit a patch of ice and then went into the ditch), then you seek your damages against that party.

Insurance steps in and covers the losses in most cases (the different factual situations would take months to describe, but for the most part, the drivers insurance will cover injuries to injured parties). The driver pays their deductable and then their insurance company steps into their shoes and puts the injured party to the strict proof of:

a) proving that their insured was actually the cause of the accident; and
b) proving that their losses are what they say they are, and are worth the amount of money the injured party says they are worth.

This is the basic whether someone gets injured when they get t-boned at an intersection, injured when the car they are riding in hits the ditch on the highway, or if you get run over in a crosswalk.

Specifically for this case however...

Canadian law has long refused to accept "Wrongful life" type arguments. These are arguments where severely disable people or their trustees bring an action against their mothers for not aborting the pregnancy or for causing damage before the baby was born. For example, mom was an addict, and now the kid is an addict, so the kid sues for the increased cost of living relating to their illness. Courts have long held that human life is paramount and therefore refused to accept a submissions that suggest that an abortion would have left the person better off. I dont think many people disagree with that one.

What this case is suggesting is that there are very limited circumstances whereby the Courts will accept that a mother may be liable for injuries caused to her unborn child. The limited circumstance is relating to car accidents and where there are tremendous costs to caring for the innocent third party who was injured in the accident. The Court appointed administrator for the child was therefore allowed to bring an action against the person who caused the accident to attempt to put them in a position they would have been in had the accident never happend. Money is not the ideal solution, but we haven't invented time machines yet so it is how the system functions.

There are two things to look out for in this case because of what it does NOT stand for:

1) This case was settled, so it isn't like people in the same situation down the road can look to this couple and say there is clear caselaw on point working in this favour. They would have to fight the same fight these people did. It is possible that the insurance company said "it's going to cost us X to fight this, and if we lose, this could open some flood gates, so lets offer the family X-$50,000 to see if they will settle and see if they take it. We're not admitting liability on this at all, but for economic reasons, lets settle it and move forward and mitigate our losses". I would be very surprised if the Release signed doesn't have language that says "we are not admitting liability" as well as a confidentiality clause.

2) As mentioned above, this case does not stand for any legal proposition that a fetus is a person for the purposes of an abortion debate. Had this child passed away before being born then this specific action would not have been launched.