The appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding the elderly respondents damages, including $250,000 each in general non-pecuniary damages, after an oil spill destroyed their home.
The appellant argued that a mistrial should have been declared due to prejudicial evidence regarding insurance and settlement negotiations, and that the damages were excessive.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfair prejudice to warrant a mistrial and concluding that while the general damages award was high, it was reasonably open to the jury given the devastating impact of the loss of the respondents' home.
