2 total
The court dismissed a summary judgment motion based on the inevitable accident defence due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the driver's anaphylactic shock.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the motor vehicle accident was an "inevitable accident" due to the defendant driver suffering a severe anaphylactic shock from an allergic reaction to naproxen (Aleve).
The plaintiff opposed, asserting that genuine issues of fact and credibility required a trial.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were complex and highly disputed factual issues, particularly regarding the timing of the anaphylactic reaction, the driver's potential negligence in taking a double dose of medication without reading instructions, and when unconsciousness occurred.
The court determined it could not make the necessary factual findings for a fair and just determination without a full trial, even with enhanced fact-finding powers.
The court granted the custodial mother authority to proceed with auto transplantation dental surgery for her child over the father's objections.
The applicant mother sought court approval for auto transplantation dental surgery for her daughter Juliana, who had lost three front teeth in a boating accident.
The respondent father opposed the procedure and favored waiting until the child reached maturity to undergo traditional dental implants.
The court found that the mother, as the primary custodial parent who had taken initiative in obtaining professional assistance, had the authority to make this medical decision.
The court approved the auto transplantation procedure, finding it to be a scientifically valid option with comparable success rates to the alternative procedure, and that it was in the best interests of the child.