David A. DiLella

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his claim for nervous shock arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a triable issue as to whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the deceased's conduct could result in damages to an innocent driver involved in the accident.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that nervous shock was not reasonably foreseeable.

The appellant appealed a jury's allocation of fault in a motor vehicle accident case, arguing the negligence particulars were unsustainable and that the respondent's opening address was highly prejudicial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the negligence particulars were supported by the pleadings and evidence.

While the opening address was improper, the trial judge's clear and blunt corrective instruction to the jury was sufficient to cure the prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The defendants appealed a jury's damages award.

Both parties acknowledged that the damages awarded by the jury were so high as to justify appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted lower pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage awards for the respondents.

On consent, no order for costs was made.