Case Studies

Anderson v. Jones, 2003 BCSC 746Anderson v. Jones - settlement amountBeick v. Webb et al, 2002 BCSC 1251Beick v. Webb et al - settlement amountClaiter v. Rose et al, 2004 BCSC 50Claiter v. Rose et al - settlement amountFarshchian v. Spencer, 2002 BCSC 83Farshchian v. Spencer - settlement amountHadland v. Thompson, 2002 BCSC 380Hadland v. Thompson - settlement amountKenny v. Leveson-Gowen et al, (2005), 2005 BCSC 447 (BCSC)Kenny v. Leveson-Gowen et al - Settlement AmountKlippenstein v. Parmar, 2003 BCSC 1138Klippenstein v. Parmar - settlement amountMosher v. Ferrari and Mosher v. Bitoni, 1998 CarswellBC 197 (BCSC)Mosher v. Ferrari and Mosher v. Bitoni - settlement amountRosvold v. Dunlop (2001) 2001 BCCA 1Rosvold v. Dunlop - settlement amountTombe v. Stefulj, 2002 BSCS 154Tombe v. Stefulj - settlement amountZaruk v. Simpson et al, 2003 BCSC 1748Zaruk v. Simpson et al - settlement amount

Get the answers from Jill Franklin,
Best Selling Author of the Auto Accident Suvivor`s Guide

Claiter v. Rose et al, 2004 BCSC 50

This was an action for damages for Mr. Claiter’s injuries in a motor vehicle accident on January 25, 1999.  The issue of liability (which driver caused the accident) was to be determined in a separate trial.  The only issues in this case were the amount of compensation Mr. Clatier deserved and the “seatbelt defense”.  The defense alleged that Mr. Claiter had not worn his seatbelt and any damages award should be reduced accordingly.

The accident occurred on a winter morning outside of Kamloops.  Mr. Claiter was driving approximately 70 km/h in an 80 km/h zone.  A driver pulled out from a street on the right and tried to merge into the flow of traffic, cutting off the vehicle in front of Mr. Claiter.  The driver of the vehicle in front of Mr. Claiter applied his brakes.  Mr. Claiter attempted to swerve to avoid the vehicle in front and lost control of his vehicle.  It crossed the highway and collided with an oncoming truck and then struck and dislodged a concrete barrier.

At the time of the accident, Mr. Claiter was a 53 years old, married and living in Kamloops.  He had left high school in grade 11 and worked his way up to become a very successful businessman.  He operated several different businesses including a liquidation company, convenience stores, lotto outlets and an importing business.  He also owned and rented out commercial property through one of his businesses.  He was an outgoing man with an active social life who enjoyed hunting, fishing and travel. 

The accident completely and permanently altered his life.  He suffered a severe brain injury and serious physical injuries.  He recovered relatively well from his physical injuries but his brain injury left him permanently disabled.  Mr. Claiter suffered memory problems, cognitive difficulties and profound personality changes.  His doctors felt he would likely remain unemployable and would have to rely on his wife for assistance in his daily life.

The court assessed Mr. Claiter’s total damages claim at $966,872.79.  This figure included damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, cost for future care and $75,000 in trust for his wife as compensation for taking care of him since the accident.

The court considered the “seatbelt defence” raised by the defendants.  A witness testified that when he approached Mr. Claiter’s vehicle after the accident he found Mr. Claiter lying across the bench seat.  The driver’s seatbelt was in the retracted position.  The court found that Mr. Claiter was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident. 

By what percentage were Mr. Claiter’s damages reduced because of his failure to wear his seatbelt?

                   0%              25%              50%             100%