Simon Gray-Schleihauf

In a personal injury action arising from a multi‑vehicle rear‑end collision, third parties sought summary judgment dismissing the third‑party claim and cross‑claims against them.

The moving parties argued that the rear‑ending driver’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and relied on the so‑called “clear line” doctrine to argue their conduct could not have contributed to the collision.

The defendants and another third party argued that the driver who stopped in a live lane of traffic may have breached duties under the Highway Traffic Act and that factual disputes existed regarding traffic conditions, visibility of hazard lights, and whether the vehicle was disabled.

Applying the modern summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that credibility disputes and complex issues of causation and negligence required a trial.

The court further noted that the “clear line” doctrine could not displace the modern “but for” causation analysis.

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01 motion seeking an order barring the plaintiff from advancing personal injury damages arising from the death of her dog, arguing that psychiatric injury to the owner was not reasonably foreseeable and was too remote in law.

The plaintiff alleged negligent dispensing of medication caused the dog’s death and resulted in severe emotional trauma, nervous shock, and economic loss.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the damages were unrecoverable and that issues of foreseeability, duty of care, and psychiatric injury required determination on a full evidentiary record.

The motion to strike the personal injury claims was dismissed.

However, the court granted the defendants’ alternative request for further examination for discovery and related production concerning newly disclosed economic loss reports.