In 2006, the Plaintiff, while walking home from a party, was hit by a drunk driver, and suffered life-changing injuries. the Plaintiff sustained injuries to his internal organs, broken bones and is now a paraplegic expected to require the aid of a wheelchair for the rest of his life.
While nothing could undo the damage that the Plaintiff suffered in this tragedy, the Plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his injuries to support his lifelong needs. These needs include a powered wheelchair, wheelchair accessible housing, a wheelchair accessible vehicle, housekeeping supports, and medical expenses.
In this case, the impaired driver was driving a vehicle owned by his father and his father’s company at the time of the accident. The central issue raised by the insurance company in the case was that the father’s consent for his vehicle to be used at the time of the accident was conditional on the driver not drinking. The Plaintiffs argued that in this case, consent was not conditional: the driver either had consent or he did not. If the owner of the vehicle had consented for the son to drive the vehicle, the insurance company for the vehicle’s owner could also be liable for damages (learn more about SEF 44 coverage here).
This part of the law had never been the subject of a court decision before in the Northwest Territories. At trial, James H. Brown and Associates, Counsel for the Plaintiff, successfully argued that the Defendant had consent from his father to drive the vehicle; therefore the father would also be, or vicariously, liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff. To show that the father did consent for his son to drive, we worked diligently to collect as much evidence as we could to support our claims, including calling both the father, the son, and those who knew the defendant to the witness stand. We proved that the son was often using the vehicle in the three months before the accident, and therefore it was likely that he consented for his son to drive.
The defendants appealed the case to the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal on three separate grounds: the proper interpretation of the statute, the finding of implied consent, and a failure to apply the correct interpretation of the statute and implied consent. The Court of Appeal supported the ruling of the trial court and upheld the trial decision.
Strong representation of individuals injured in accidents goes beyond winning at trial. Treatment for the Plaintiff’s health and injuries could not be put on hold while he waited for a court to make a ruling. As his Counsel, James H. Brown and Associates worked hard to ensure that he was supported throughout the process. We were able to get advances on the damages so the Plaintiff could pay his bills and medical expenses. We advocated for the Defence to agree on the amount of damages so we could simplify the trial and ensure a speedy resolution.
James H. Brown and Associates Stands Up for Your Rights
Over the last thirty years, James H. Brown and Associates have learned that no two accidents are the same. That’s why our team offers a comprehensive range of services for victims of motor vehicle accidents, including:
- Over 200 years of combined experience, successfully securing claims and compensation for our clients.
- Investigation and evidence preservation services, including access to accident reconstruction engineers and analysts.
- Strong relationships with organizations to support you through rehabilitation and recovery.
- And much more!
With complete resources available to pursue every avenue to justice and closure, James H. Brown and Associates is ready to support you through every step of advancing a claim, attaining justice, and navigating the road to recovery.
Have You or a Loved One Been Injured in an Auto Accident?
Contact us today to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation with James H. Brown and Associates’ experienced precedent-setting injury lawyers.