The appellant appealed a jury's damages award following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the awards for loss of income and future care were inordinately low and that the trial judge erred by failing to strike the jury after a student of the respondent's counsel had lunch with two jurors.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was sufficient evidence for the jury to disbelieve the appellant's claimed inability to work and to accept alternative, less costly future care options.
The court also held that the trial judge did not err in failing to strike the jury, as the appellant had been offered a mistrial but explicitly opted to proceed with the same jury.
