Motor Vehicle Lottery Winner

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

You have cherry-picked two facts from reading an article - i.e. she ran a marathon after and didn't miss time from work. The trial judge heard a bunch of evidence over a multi-day period, and likely received a whole whack of written material. Having considered it (s)he decided what was appropriate (in keeping with standards set by compensation given in other cases).

He's probably not a moron and he was in a better position to assess the thing than we were. As the ABCA recognized in not second-guessing him.

I guess my point is that there's too much of this "newspaper writes 500 words on judgment that took two days of trial and two months to write and everyone thinks they have an informed opinion" thing these days. And this is a 128k award, it's not wildly unprecedented or anything. I can see if I can get ahold of some of the materials if you really want to read them.

Oh I agree there is likely a tonne of facts not included, I did read some of the orignal decision.

I just feel the economics are off. The awards seem extremely high. It seems out of proportion to the damages/affect it had on her life.

Perhaps my value of a dollar is different than the courts.

Having considered it (s)he decided what was appropriate (in keeping with standards set by compensation given in other cases).

I think this decision (and apparently others are "too rich").

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

to summarize, driver was in an accident that resulted in $300 of damage to her vehicle (to put that in perspective, it is likely damage to some body trim piece and perhaps a little bodywork/painting), she then runs a marathon and misses no time at work and she winds up with a settlement of over $100k - seems like there is a huge disconnect with how hard her vehicle was hit versus her injuries.

Again, who cares how much damage is done to her vehicle, honestly? Like I said in this thread already, you can still get hurt by a vehicle rear ending your bumper at 40 km/hr and there only be damage to your $300 bumper. Being hit from behind when a vehicle is going about 40 km/hr is no walk in the park.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

If you get hit at 40 km/hour though you are going to have more than $300 dollars worth of damage to the vehicle. At the end of the day there is some degree of skepticism that goes along with the story, particularly when time off work for three months is deemed to be worth $25,000, particularly when it states that she didn't miss any time off work and she was able to continue to run marathons afterwards, something which is hard on the body.

At the end of the day, having only quickly read the judges summary I have to wonder about the legitimacy of aspects of the award.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Again, who cares how much damage is done to her vehicle, honestly? Like I said in this thread already, you can still get hurt by a vehicle rear ending your bumper at 40 km/hr and there only be damage to your $300 bumper. Being hit from behind when a vehicle is going about 40 km/hr is no walk in the park.

Not a chance in hell. There isn't a vehicle on the road that would sustain less than $300 damage in your scenario. Not even at half the speed.

I agree that vehicle damage is not the best gauge for injury severity, but let's make our assumptions a little more realistic.

[AndyL]

One of those times I kinda like alberta's soft tissue cap scenario... (Mind you I don't agree with how it's handled and applied - but I agree with the principal).

I once had a little bumper hump in vancouver - basically no damage to either car (my front bumper had a scuff - hers well kleenex took care of paint transfer) - one of those I almost stopped in time scenarios... ICBC awarded her something like 80k in damages - close to 5 years later... That was awesome let me tell you...

For all the times I've been rear ended - I've just let it be, as really other than a stiff neck for a day or two, never had an issue... But damn - would have been a nice chunk to put on a mortgage

[Northendzone]

perhaps the next time we are hit with an increase to our auto insurance rates, we can revisit this thread.......

I agree with UCbrother - there is a huge disconnect between the physical damages and the cash payout.......it is great she was taken care of, but on the surface, things don't fit.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

perhaps the next time we are hit with an increase to our auto insurance rates, we can revisit this thread.......

Why? Are you from B.C?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Why? Are you from B.C?

You know that this decision looked at an Alberta decision right? Courts/lawyers will look at decisions outside of the their provinces it needed.

The courts don't work in a provincial cone of silence.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You know that this decision looked at an Alberta decision right? Courts/lawyers will look at decisions outside of the their provinces it needed.

The courts don't work in a provincial cone of silence.

Well that sounds awfully stupid to look at a case where the laws are different.

This isn't a unique case so no idea why anyone other than someone making a story out of nothing would want to look at this case. This happens thousands of times in Alberta so no need to look at an ordinary case in B.C.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It's clear the defense was lazy and they rightfully lost. .

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Well that sounds awfully stupid to look at a case where the laws are different.
.

So the defence was lazy and the judge was stupid.

Got it.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So the defence was lazy and the judge was stupid.

Got it.

No, the judge wasn't stupid. The lady got her money so the judge obviously was smart and the defence was lazy and stupid.