This appeal arose from a civil jury trial concerning a collision between a motorist and a pedestrian, Jasmine Jarvis, who suffered severe brain injuries.
The jury at trial found the motorist not liable.
The appellants (plaintiffs) appealed, arguing the trial was unfair due to the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial bad character evidence (Ms. Jarvis fleeing a taxi without paying fare) and inflammatory remarks by respondent counsel.
The Court of Appeal found the taxi fare evidence inadmissible and its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value.
The court also found respondent counsel's jury address inflammatory and the trial judge's instructions inadequate to cure the prejudice.
The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal (on costs) was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered.
