- Thread starter
- Admin
- #41
Not really.It will be interesting to see how Columbus makes out in 2 leagues.
Have you seen how your son tackles? Baby torpedo?I heard some Numpty went into a fackin' stupid tackle....
I heard some Numpty went into a fackin' stupid tackle....
His son tackles like he was taught ….the wee hatchetHave you seen how your son tackles? Baby torpedo?
?So do we all remember the lawsuit that happened in a north van unaffiliated league due to a reckless tackle? Well… Here we go again
Yeah, remember that BS but was wondering if something in the news regarding this weekend's incident.North Vancouver rec soccer player awarded $103,000 in damages - BC | Globalnews.ca
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling could serve as a warning for anyone playing recreational sports about playing too rough after a rec player was seriously injured by an opponent.globalnews.ca
Yes, and now we have another new situation similar on the riseNorth Vancouver rec soccer player awarded $103,000 in damages - BC | Globalnews.ca
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling could serve as a warning for anyone playing recreational sports about playing too rough after a rec player was seriously injured by an opponent.globalnews.ca
Justice these days is not cheap and if an injured player like the BB5 player took civil action they'd have to find a trial lawyer willing to do this on a contingency agreement where they could negotiate up to 40% of the award they were seeking. Not sure these days if they can do better and get a starving lawyer to accept say 15 to 25%. Vehicle injury claims are maxed 33 and 1/3%.I thought that decision ripe for an appeal; seasoned ref only gives a yellow but it's worth civil sanctioning? Appellate courts are loathe to interfere with trial judgements because the trial judge is who actually saw the witnesses testify etc etc... seems to me the same argument could have been made with respect to the referee's assessment... but, I wasn't part of that trial, so maybe there's more to the story...
1) most lawyers operating on contingency charge 25% if the matter resolves. Yeah, we charge more if we have to strap up and run the trial. Seems fair. Oh, and 25% of nothing is nothing, so there's considerable risk in taking on cases such as these. The evidence never comes out exactly as you expect - and that's usually to the detriment of the party prosecuting the case. So yeah, if we're taking on the risk, there should be some reward at the end of it for a job well done. Won't apologize for that.Justice these days is not cheap and if an injured player like the BB5 player took civil action they'd have to find a trial lawyer willing to do this on a contingency agreement where they could negotiate up to 40% of the award they were seeking. Not sure these days if they can do better and get a starving lawyer to accept say 15 to 25%. Vehicle injury claims are maxed 33 and 1/3%.
The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff both on the award and Scale B legal fees (which likely won't pay all the legal fees but some of the plaintiff's cost.
This is not a complicated case and it's a good learning case given how the trial judge lays out the differences across Canada based on the plaintiff's submission in cases like this.
2023 BCSC 349 (CanLII) | Miller v Cox | CanLII
Access all information related to judgment Miller v Cox, 2023 BCSC 349 (CanLII) on CanLII.www.canlii.org
In reading the Reasons for Judgment I see no grounds for an appeal.
While I'm not a lawyer, I've been involved in my career with litigation over many years.
BC courts use a comparative approach in injury claims and the Court of Appeal would only reduce the quantum if the comparative approach was clearly of minimal value in that case. That's a stretch in this type of injury case.
The only issue at trial was if the defendant was negligent.
Was the conduct of the defendant reasonable and acceptable conduct in how the slide tackle was executed OR was it "outside the risks which a reasonable competitor would assume in the game."
Turns out that other provinces use a different standard of care than BC does and as this appeal would have gone to the BC Court of Appeal, the trial judge no doubt used the BC standard - the "west coast" approach. Assumably the defendant counsel pushed for the other cases and a higher burden of proof as emerging law.
An injured player...in BC faces a much less substantial burden of proof of an actionable injury than does a similar player in other provinces. Cases mentioned in Manitoba and Ontario consider "intentional conduct (or at least recklessness) must be the standard.
These other cases mean the player assumed a level of risk knowing the game came with risks and a normal slide tackle that led to injury was not beyond the standard of care owed by a defendant.
This couldn't have helped defendant Cox's case:
Findings and Disposition
[76] With the exception of Mr. Cox, I find all of the witnesses to be straightforward and credible. Some of the witnesses were closer to the tackle and had a better view of the incident. Nevertheless, the consistency of their evidence allows me to find, based on a balance of probabilities, the central facts in this case.
The bottom line with witnesses is that if everyone is telling the exact same story the trial judge would be more skeptical.
For witnesses with no experience in testifying, it's tough to testify on your own behalf as your lawyer putting you on the stand would give you easy questions but cross-examination exposes inconsistencies.
However, in a case like this a defendant would have to give their own version as it's not like a criminal case where it's best to just STFU and say nothing at all.