So a woman walks into a glass door....

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Serious question. Is it hard not to roll your eyes when people like this show up at your office?

It depends on the facts of the case. Lawyers don't generally take on frivilous cases. Crazy stuff won't even get past the receptionist.

This plaintiff could have a totally legitimate claim. I don't know if she can prove her damages, but liability may not be difficult to prove. She will probably get a settlement before trial.

[Mazrim]

I thought this kind of crap only happened in the US. It's really sad that people sue to cover for their own stupidity. Suck it up, buttercup.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I thought this kind of crap only happened in the US. It's really sad that people sue to cover for their own stupidity. Suck it up, buttercup.

No offense, but I think it's far worse when people make snap judgements without knowing all of the facts.

This might well be a frivolous lawsuit--stranger things have happened; but as troutman points out, it is also possible that she has a legitimate claim. The courts aren't cash machines, and lawyers know this. Most personal injury lawyers work on contingency, which means that the chances of success (or at least of a decent settlement) have already been assessed by someone with more knowledge of the law than you or I have, and who also has access to all of the facts in the case.

Does that mean this isn't a frivolous lawsuit? Heck, no; I don't know the answer to that any more than you do. But you can rest assured that courts in Canada aren't eager to compensate people for injuries (even severe injuries) that are caused by their own stupidity. For instance, take a look at their decision in Hanke v Resurfice, where they didn't compensate a zamboni driver who was severely burned after putting water into the fuel tank of his zamboni.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200.../2007scc7.html

It would be interesting to look at the pleadings in this case...

[SeeBass]

Perhaps the woman is a bird.

[CaptainCrunch]

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It would be interesting to look at the pleadings in this case...

CP should set up a fund as a sort of public service. You could grab these pleadings, the ones from the "attractive partier" case (Courtney Lacroix), Jarome Iginla and the troubles with his contractors, etc.

The pleadings, especially the Statements of Defence, could help bring each sides' version of events to the public's attention. The media will invariably end a story with something like this (Statements of claim and statements of defence contain allegations which have not been proven in court.) but rarely do they every follow up on civil cases to see how the defendants respond to the allegations.

Calgarypuck usually ranks pretty high in search results anyway whenever you're googling for info on these oddball cases anyway. May as well try to complete the public record.

[amorak]

Based on a quick google, looks like she is a UofA professor of Film...

http://www.experts.ualberta.ca/expert.cfm?id=40951

Lame.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by amorak

Based on a quick google, looks like she is a UofA professor of Film...

http://www.experts.ualberta.ca/expert.cfm?id=40951

Lame.

You can do a quick search of this thread to find that out too

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No offense, but I think it's far worse when people make snap judgements without knowing all of the facts.

None taken. I suppose if I were in a position to make important judgements on this, I wouldn't be making a comment like I did and wait to see all the info. As it stands, I don't have a problem with forming an opinion on this and making it known on an internet forum.

Lawsuits which could be "silly" only have the potential to clog up the legal system when the time could be better spent elsewhere.

Also, why did she take 2 years to file this?

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Also, why did she take 2 years to file this?

Pretty sure there is a 2 year limit on when you can file a lawsuit, and she was probably waiting so that she knew the true effects of her supposed injuries.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Also, why did she take 2 years to file this?

The limitation period (i.e., Statute of Limitations) for a claim like this in Alberta is 2 years. The parties were in all likelihood in contact since the accident and have probably been trying to resolve the claim since that time. Lawyers, insurance companies, doctors and adjusters have all probably been involved too. No resolution could be reached so, on the eve of the limitation period expiring, counsel filed the claim in order to maintain the cause of action.

The plaintiff actually has a year to serve the Statement of Claim from the date of filing too (with the possibility of up to a three month extension). Were it not for media coverage or other communication between the parties, it's possible that a defendant could suddenly become aware of a lawsuit 39 months after the incident occurred.

[Northendzone]

i am stunned that this womans last name is not lindros