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 - settlement amount

The court did not reduce Mr. Claiter’s damages.  It ruled against the defendants on the “seatbelt defense” because they failed to prove that Mr. Claiter’s injuries would have been reduced or eliminated had been wearing a properly functioning seatbelt.  There was no evidence as to whether the seatbelt was functional or not.  Although the large injury to his forehead suggested it had struck the interior of the car.  There was no evidence to show that wearing a seatbelt would have reduced the injury. 

It is possible that the court might have ruled otherwise if the defendants had better evidence to support the “seatbelt defence”.  In some cases, the courts have cited common sense as the reason for reducing damages awards when the plaintiff fails to wear a seatbelt.  In others, the courts have required expert evidence to establish that the failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.

The moral of the story is always wear your seatbelt!