In an intimate board room tucked away inside the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, five men sit deciding the financial fate of a traumatically injured woman.
Six years ago, the Plaintiff was crumbling and staggering down a street that cannot be named. She was “drunk out of her mind,” as her defence had to concede – three times over the legal limit. It was 3:58 in the morning. Despite the traffic light not signaling for her to walk, she careened into what witnesses describe as “a light jog” coming in at a 45-degree angle. The Plaintiff was on the road for anywhere from 3.4 seconds to 4.9. That was all it took.
The Defendant smacked into her at 50 km/h, a cool 10 kilometers under the speed limit.
So, where’s the case? Why is this heavily intoxicated jaywalker lawyered up and trying to get a six-figure settlement – one her legal team is assured she deserves, at minimum?
Because the Defendant has been proven to be grossly negligent and, perhaps worse, a liar.
In his official statement to the police on the night of the incident, he claimed that he reached a full-stop two seconds prior to hitting the victim, that she hit the side of his car and that she was still clutching her purse after falling.
In subsequent proceedings and depositions these claims were contradicted by everyone from engineers subpoenaed into the fold, to eyewitnesses, to the Defendant himself.
The truth of the matter is this: Plaintiff was carrying a large white purse and was clad in bright beige jeans and sharp white sandals. The morning was clear, the road was heavily illuminated, it is the opinion of all parties involved – culpable, honorable, expert, that there was no reason that the Defendant did not avoid the collision.
The Defendant could not remember the clothing of the woman he struck, indicating that he was not paying attention. There were no skid marks at the scene, indicating that he did not stop. Pieces of Plaintiff’s hair and scalp were found lodged in his windshield, indicating that he collided with her head on, contrary to his initial claims.
Plaintiff now suffers from persistent daily headaches that she says feel like hammers hitting her head. She is depressed, has been diagnosed with post-trauma vision syndrome and now requires 24-hour care due to her now permanent traumatic brain injury.
Her lawyer, a soft-spoken, tonsured gentleman with the demeanour of a great-uncle, claims that she simply does not have the funds to continue her treatment, and, without an insurance payout, will see her condition worsen.
His opponent, a bespectacled, salt-and-pepper haired uncanny-valley mish-mash of Martin Freeman and the doughy smoothness of a human Pixar character, said, in response:
“If she stops treatment, that’s due to treatment fatigue, a very common occurrence, nothing to do with money.”
The two legal team heads will meet alone next Thursday to discuss a settlement to avoid going to trial.
Should their minds not meet, which they admit is the likely occurrence, the case will go to trial in 2018, and is expected to last for six weeks, something the judge present called:
“An inordinate amount of time for an unnecessary trial.”
Feature photo courtesy of Shutterstock
Leave a Reply