Christopher Whibbs

The moving party sought summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident at an intersection where the traffic lights were not operating due to a power outage.

The moving party relied on dashboard camera video evidence, which the responding party argued was inadmissible.

The court admitted the video, finding it to be a fair and accurate representation of the events.

Based on the video and the responding party's evidence, the court concluded that the moving party had entered the intersection first and had the right-of-way, and that the responding party failed to yield.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the moving party.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondent sought costs in the amount of $6,343.82.

The appellant did not provide costs submissions.

Considering the straightforward nature of the issues on appeal and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,000.

Supplementary reasons addressing an outstanding refusal arising from an examination for discovery in a civil action involving a leased vehicle.

The disputed question asked how profit was calculated by the dealership on a leased vehicle.

The court held that while the exact profit earned by the dealership was not directly relevant, the method of calculating profit was relevant to issues concerning ownership, control of the vehicle, and the financial relationships among the dealer, financing company, and manufacturer.

Given the surrounding evidence about the assignment of the lease and payments made, the answer was necessary to understand prior discovery evidence and documents produced.

The witness was therefore required to answer the question regarding how profit is calculated.