M. Blois

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notices in two motor vehicle accident actions that were to be tried together.

The actions had already been set down for trial, requiring the plaintiff to seek leave under Rule 48.04(1).

The court denied leave, finding no evidence to explain the delay in bringing the motion and that the 'interests of justice' test was not met.

The court further held that even if leave were granted, it would not strike the jury notices, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that justice would be better served by a judge-alone trial.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

During a personal injury jury trial involving a laceration and subsequent amputation, the court ruled on the permissible ranges of damages counsel could suggest to the jury.

The court also reversed an earlier ruling, deciding to ask the jury to specify the particulars of the defendant's negligence due to scant liability evidence.

Finally, the court granted the defendant's request for an adverse inference instruction regarding the plaintiff's failure to call treating health professionals, noting their evidence was material to causation and damages.

During a personal injury trial involving a plaintiff who was injured by an unidentified hazard in a hardware store, the defendant sought to have the issue of contributory negligence put to the jury.

The court dismissed the request, finding no evidentiary basis for contributory negligence because neither party could identify a foreseeable risk or hazard that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care to avoid.