Roger Chown

During a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on whether questions regarding the plaintiff's future loss of income, future medical treatment, and future mileage expenses should be put to the jury.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidentiary foundation, such as vocational, occupational, or economic expert evidence, to support these claims.

Concluding that leaving these questions to the jury would invite speculation, the court ruled that the questions would not be put to the jury.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action against four defendants, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs had commenced the action seeking damages for a severe brain injury sustained in an assault.

The court declined to award costs to the successful defendants, finding this to be a rare case where the plaintiffs' impecuniosity and exceptionally sympathetic circumstances justified a departure from the normal costs rules.

The plaintiff brought a motion to determine the order of examinations for discovery, arguing he had the right to examine the defendant first because he initiated the discovery process.

The defendant argued it had the prima facie right to examine first because it was the first to serve an affidavit of documents and notice of examination under Rule 31.04.

The court found that the defendant had the prima facie right to determine the order of examinations and that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to direct a different order.

The motion was dismissed.