Lemieux v. Evers

Lemieux v. Evers

Defendant was negligent (vehicle in northbound lane and likely speeding or defective brakes) and plaintiff, an 11-year-old, was not contributorily negligent; plaintiff proved on balance that the accident caused ongoing psychological and physical injuries; the defendant failed to prove unreasonable failure to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 1464
Parties
Plaintiff (infant): Joel Lemieux; Guardian Ad Litem / Plaintiff in Trust: Susan Lemieux; Defendant: Shannon Wendy Evers; Defendant: Patricia Ann Evers
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Negligence Personal Injury / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff; defendants liable; no contributory negligence found; damages awarded to plaintiff and to guardian ad litem in trust.
Legal Topics
Liability, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Mitigation of Damages, Psychological Injury, Capacity of Child to Consent to Treatment, Quantum of Damages, In Trust Claim
Source Language
english
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Family/minor Consent Issues Liability Contributory Negligence Causation +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel Lemieux

Plaintiff (infant)

Susan Lemieux

Guardian Ad Litem / Plaintiff in Trust

Shannon Wendy Evers

Defendant

Patricia Ann Evers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Negligence Personal Injury / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was defendant negligent?
  2. 2 Was plaintiff contributorily negligent?
  3. 3 Did the accident cause plaintiff's psychological and physical injuries?

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant was negligent (vehicle in northbound lane and likely speeding or defective brakes) and plaintiff, an 11-year-old, was not contributorily negligent; plaintiff proved on balance that the accident caused ongoing psychological and physical injuries; the defendant failed to prove unreasonable failure to mitigate because counselling provoked panic attacks and plaintiff lacked capacity and readiness to continue, therefore full compensatory damages awarded as quantified by the court.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff; defendants liable; no contributory negligence found; damages awarded to plaintiff and to guardian ad litem in trust.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay plaintiff non-pecuniary damages of $65,000 CAD.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiff $15,000 CAD for loss of opportunity to earn an income.