Halifax Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Car accidents are the leading cause of death for children age 4 and up. Child car seats have been shown to lower the chances of death in a car accident by 28 per cent compared with seatbelts. They have also been found to reduce the severity of car crash injuries.

Most child car seat manufactures recommend that children stay in rear facing seats until they are 1 year old or 9 kilos as a guideline, before being placed in forward facing seats.

Rear Facing Seats Safer
But after reviewing data from injuries due to car crashes over several years that shows that children in rear-facing car seats are more likely to surivive, the American Academy of Pediatrics and U.S. traffic safety officials have teamed up to release new guidelines that recommend toddlers should sit in rear-facing car seats until age two. If a child under the age of two outgrows the weight limits for their infant car seat, they should be moved to a rear-facing convertible car seat and kept in that position until age two.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued similar recommendations.

Canadian Guidelines Not Clear

In Canada the Canadian Paediatric Society's Injury Prevention Committee Guidelines recommend that parents should only move their children into the next phase of car seat when a car seat's weight or height limits have been exceeded.

"Parents should be encouraged to continue to use a rear-facing seat as long as the height and weight limitations allow..."

Unfortunately this "encouragement" doesn't really provide parents with clear directions as to the safest choice for their child's safety.

Dr. Claude Cyr a member of the CPS committee told CTV News that the re-wording of the AAP guidelines could compel a review of the Canadian guidelines to see if they could be made clearer.

Further Reading:

Car Seat Recall a Reminder to Parents About Possible Dangers to Children

Nova Scotia has had a mandatory helmet law for motorcycles (and bicycles) for many years. But there are some jurisdictions in the United States (Florida and Texas for example) where motorcycle helmets are not required.

There are "mountains" of studies that prove that helmets reduce the risk of death and brain injury after a motorcycle accident. But opponents to mandatory helmet laws have claimed for some time that helmets increase the risk of spinal injury because of the torsion laced on the neck by a heavy helmet.

But a recent research study published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, shows that helmeted riders were 22 percent less likely to suffer cervical spine injury than those without helmets. The study reviewed and mined the National Trauma Databank, looking through information on more than 40,000 motorcycle collisions between 2002 and 2006.

Hopefully this study will finally put this silly argument to rest. There is no legitimate reason not to wear a motorcycle helmet.

The "wind in my hair" advocates claim they are the only ones at risk if they chose not to wear a helmet. But every single one of us has to bear the medical and healthcare costs that serious brain injuries and spinal cord injuries place on our already overburdened health care system.

What do you think?

We decorated our Christmas tree today and I noticed the tree was already getting a little dry. Then I came across this public service announcement this evening. Scary!

We all get busy over the holidays and sometimes in the rush we forget to do the little things, like watering the tree.

Christmas tree fires are not common, a few hundred a year in the United States where there would be millions of Christmas trees in homes across the country. But when they happen, tree fires are likely to be serious. On average, one of every 21 reported fires that began with a Christmas tree resulted in death.

So please, have a safe and happy holiday season...and remember to water your tree!

Everyone knows you should have smoke detectors in your home right?

You may even be one of the dedicated few who check them to be sure they are working and replace the batteries on a regular basis.

But did you know that your smoke alarm may not provide you with adequate warning during a fire?

Detector May Not Detect!

Recent research suggests that the most common type of smoke detector in Canadian homes, ionization smoke detectors, are not particularly effective in detecting the most common cause of fatalities in home fires, smoldering fires.

Problem Known for Decades

This problem has been known by manufactures for decades of smoke detectors for decades but consumers have no idea of the risk. In the early 1990's a research study at Texas A&M University determined that the failure rate of a photo electric smoke detector in detecting smoldering fires is just 4%. But ionization smoke detectors had a failure rate of up to 56%!

Why the Difference?

The huge difference for the failure rate is due to the way that the smoke detectors work.

Ionization Alarms

Ionization smoke detectors create a small electric current between two metal plates. When the electric current is interrupted by smoke the alarm is triggered. This type of technology is susceptible to “false alarms” from high humidity in bathrooms or steam from cooking in kitchens. In fact, the propensity for these types of alarms to go off by mistake often leads consumers to disable to alarms or remove their batteries eliminating any protection at all.

Photoelectic Alarms

Photoelectric smoke alarms contain a small beam of light. When smoke enters the detector it deflects the light onto a electric cell and the alarm is triggered. These types of alarms are more sensitive to the type of large some particles that are given off during smoldering fire, the kind of electrical fire that often happens at night when homeowners are asleep.

Cost an Issue?

The popularity of ionization smoke detectors is also likely due to the fact that they are incredibly cheap. However, while photoelectric smoke detectors cost a little more they are far more efficient at detecting smoldering fires and less prone to false alarms.

More Information:

Health Canada

How to Properly Install a Smoke Detector

Smoke Alarms: Home Safety Information

The temperature is dropping and more and more Canadians are using space heaters to keep warm.

The first house that my wife and I bought was so poorly insulated that we had an electric space heater in the bathroom so we wouldn’t freeze to death getting ready for work in the morning.
Thinking back it probably wasn't a great idea to have an electrical appliance like that around so much water.

Since then I have seen many people who have been injured because of faulty space heaters. Or children injured because heaters were not used properly. So I thought it might be a good idea to post these safety tips.

Different Heaters - Different Risks

There are two different types of space heaters: electric heaters and heaters that burn fuel (usually oil or kerosene).

Large Space or Small Space?

There are convection space heaters that can be used to heat a large area. They usually come with a fan or blower to circulate heat.

Radiant heaters are designed to be used in smaller areas.

But any type of space heater; electric, fuel, convection or radiant can cause serious injury or loss due to burns or house fires if not designed or used properly.

Safety Tips

1. Not a Substitute. Space heaters are designed to temporarily heat small areas. They are not a substitute for heating an entire home or apartment.

2. Children and space heaters don’t mix. The heating elements in space heaters tend to glow and create a sometimes irresistible attraction to babies and toddlers. Never leave children alone in a room where a space heater is being used.

3. Don’t leave heaters unattended. Most house fires that are caused by space heaters happen because the person that turned on the heater forgets to turn it off before they leave the room or fall asleep.

4. Space heaters can cause fires. This may sound obvious but space heaters should be kept far away from flammable materials. Most space heater fires happen when curtains, blankets or clothes are placed to close to the space heater. Manufacturing guidelines usually recommend that space heaters not be placed within 3 feet of any flammable materials. That includes the floor so don’t place you space heater on a rug!

5. Extension cords are dangerous. Most electric space heaters specifically state that they are not to be used with extension cords. Extension cords in general pose a danger especially when they are placed under carpets or rugs.

6. Fuel based space heaters should not be used indoors. Kerosene or oil based space heaters give off carbon monoxide. When used inside a room they can give off poisonous fumes that can kill the occupant while they sleep.

More information:

Canadian Standards Association

Consumer Product Safety Association

Harvard University Space Heater Safety Fact Sheet

Last week I posted about how many drivers are not aware of the dangers posed by their car's rear blind spot. Yesterday I asked under what circumstances a persons driving privileges should be restricted.

Today I want to talk about another driver safety issue that is just starting to come to the public's attention. But it is an issue that is going to become more important in the near future. I also want to provide some information that may help improve the safety of our roads and highways.

Why Do I Care?

I represent the family of a young boy who suffered a serious brain injury as a result of a car crash. The driver that injured him, a senior citizen, backed out of her parking spot, accelerated backwards and crushed the child between two cars. The elderly driver had no explanation for how the crash happened.

In the twenty years that I have been representing accident victims I have heard similar stories time and time again.

Number of Elderly Drivers Increasing

There are nearly 3 million elderly drivers in Canada. But as baby boomers get older this figure will increase to more than 6 million within 25 years. According to the Canadian Medical Association Journal by the year 2025 1 in 4 Canadians will be 65 or older.

Drives age 65 or older account for the highest number of fatalities by age group.

Safe to Drive?

The Canadian Medical Association is calling for a simple test to help determine when a senior citizen is safe to drive. Provincial laws place an obligation on doctors to notify authorities if they suspect their patients are not safe to drive.

No Standards in Place

There is no set age that determines when a person should stop driving. However, in 2009 the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists launched a research program to study driver safety for senior citizens.

Their research indicates that older drivers can be re-trained to improve their response times, increase their flexibility to allow them to do shoulder checks and check behind them and to improve their visual search abilities so they can be more aware of road hazards.

A Few Simple Questions

The Association’s website offers simple questions that senior citizens (or their family members)can ask which may indicate that the driver should be tested.

The questions include:

1. Have you noticed a change in your driving skills?
2. Do other drivers frequently honk their horn at you or show signs of irritation?
3. Have you lost confidence in your driving ability?
4. Have friends or family refused to drive with you?

No Call To Remove Driving Privileges

Surveys show that the majority of Canadians do not want to see elderly drivers stripped of their driving privileges. There is no question that many seniors are safe and capable drivers. My great uncle was driving safely when he was 90 years old!

Drivers Need to Take Personal Responsibility

But ever individual is different and each person has to be aware of how their own driving abilities may have deteriorated and the risks that this poses to themselves and other drivers and pedestrians.

What's The Answer?

So what do you think? Is the answer mandatory driver testing after a certain age? Increased public education?

More Information:

Traffic Injury Research Foundation

Senior Driver Safety Tips

Continue reading "Elderly Drivers: How old is too old?" »

A research study conducted by the University of Toronto over 7 years has found that teenage boys with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) have a 35% higher risk of being hurt in car accidents, whether they are the driver or just a pedestrian.

The lead author of this study, Dr. Donald Redelmeier said that teenagers with ADHD:

“Should wear seatbelts, avoid excessive speed, restrict the use of alcohol and avoid distractions such as having a lot of passengers in the car and using a cell phone.”

Well duh!

At the risk of stating the obvious, all of the actions recommended by Dr. Redelmeier are things any reasonable, careful, and prudent person should do in order to reduce their risk of injury or accidents.

The problem, of course, is that teenagers, especially teenages with ADHD, are not always reasonable or prudent.

Medical Restrictions?

The question is whether persons with ADHD should have restrictions placed on their driver’s license. Just like people with reduced vision have restrictions placed on their driving privileges that require them to wear glasses when they drive.

Redelmeier told the Montreal Gazette:

"Maybe ADHD ought to be considered just like diabetes, epilepsy . . . or narcolepsy — that is the patient must show they are in good medical condition if they wish to maintain their driver's licence..."

The study points out that the increased risk to teenagers with ADHD is the same as for people with epilepsy. Every province in Canada has legislation that places some limits on the driving privileges of persons with epilepsy.

So what do you think? Should persons with ADHD have their driving privileges restricted?

What about senior citizens if age effects their sight or reflexes?

Let me know what you think.

Everyone who has learned to drive knows that all vehicles have “blind spots” in the back, sides and corners where the vehicles rear view or side view mirrors don’t provide adequate visibility.

Children Injured Every Day

Everyday, young children are injured when they are backed over by a motor vehicle. More than 70% of children injured in “backing up” accidents are hit by a driver who’s related to them, usually their parent.

Young children are particularly at risk. Toddlers up to 2 years of age represent 70% of all backing up victims. Young children simply don’t understand the danger posed by moving vehicles.

Blind Spot Increases with Vehicle Size

As the popularity of passenger vans, SUVs and pickup trucks has grown in North America, vehicles have gotten longer, higher and larger and the blind spots for these vehicles have gotten bigger.

Drivers are often to blame because they don’t understand, or underestimate, the risk presented by blind spots.

Edmunds.com conducted tests that showed for the average driver in a sedan the blind spot extends up to 10 feet behind the vehicle. For SUVs the blind spot is more than 20 feet and for a pickup truck is more than 30 feet! The shorter the driver is the larger the blind spot.

Completely Preventable

Fortunately, backings up accidents are preventable. Newer vehicles can be purchased with video cameras or rear sensor systems. After market products can be purchased so that older vehicles can have these systems installed.

Safety Doesn’t Have to Cost

Drivers don’t have to spend money to protect the safety of their children. There are a number of simple things that drivers can do to reduce the risk of backing up accidents.

Here is a list of safety tips to prevent or reduce backing up accidents. Although some of the tips may seem like common sense, as the old saying goes: “common sense is not all that common”.

1. Take a look behind your car before backing up.

2. Be aware of where your children are!

3. Tell children to move away from your vehicle before you move it.

4. Teach them! Teach your children that parked vehicles can move suddenly. Tell them that even though they can see the car, the driver may not be able to see them.

5. Know that steep hills and larger vehicles increase the size of the blind spot behind the vehicle.

6. Keep bicycles, toys and sports equipment out of your driveway.

7. Most Important. Pay attention!

I don't think I have ever seen a more effective educational video promoting seatbelt use.

Watch the video here: Embrace Life

In the past 10 years, more than 30,000 Canadians have died in car crashes.

Today 93% of Canadians use their seat belts.

The 7% of Canadians that do not wear seat belts account for almost 40% of motor vehicle accident deaths!

I bought my son Liam a new bike this past weekend. He just couldn't wait to get outside and go riding with his friends. But he had to wait while I made sure that his new bicycle helmet fit him properly.

Summertime is Bicycle Time

With warm weather and summer vacation the number of children on bikes increases dramatically. So do the number of children attending hospital emergency rooms with head injuries.

Last month I read an article about bicycle helmet use by a pediatric neurosurgeon from Winnepeg's Children's Hospital expressing concern about Manitoba's "dismal" rate of helmet use. Only 22% of Manitoba cyclists wear a helmet when they ride.

Almost Half of Canadians Don't Wear Helmets

According to Statistics Canada's Community Health Survey :

Among the 11.4 million people aged 12 and over who reported bicycling in the past year, almost half (46%) never wore a helmet.

Can you believe that there are still people who refuse to wear a helmet when they ride a bike?

Good News Bad News

The good news, at least here in Nova Scotia, is that we have gone from one of the lowest rates of helmet use in the country to the highest (66%) since the province introduced legislation making helmet use mandatory. But even with laws that require helmets more than 4 out of 10 Nova Scotians still insist on risking their lives, and their brains, by riding unprotected.

How to Properly Fit a Helmet

So as a public service I have included a link to an article on helmets.org which explains how to properly fit a bicycle helmet.

So have a great summer and please make sure you and your loved ones wear a helmet!

Continue reading "Bicycle Helmets Save Lives - Prevent Brain Injury" »

Dr. R. Menon tried to stop a class action filed against him by patients whose test results were mis-read by Menon.

The New Bruswick Court of Appeal ruled last week that the class action can proceed.

I have been following this fiasco for the last two years. For more information you can take a look a some of my past posts:

Pathologist Menon Should Have Been Fired Years Ago: N.B. Inquiry

Disgraced Pathologist Menon “Sorry” but Blames Everyone in Sight

Disgraced Pathologist Menon's Work had 'Big Problems': New Brunswick

Health Authority Knew About Pathologist's Problems: Miramichi

Perhaps now the parties can get down to the real issue. Compensating the victims who were injured or died, because they didn't receive treatment for cancer, because of the problems with Menon's work.

Defence Lawyers on Facebook

Everybody seems to be interested in Facebook, Twitter and all the other social media networks these days. That includes lawyers who represent insurance companies. There have been a series of cases across Canada where lawyers for insurance companies have demanded production of plaintiffs' Facebook pages in order to use the information against the plaintiff.

Depressed Victim Looked Too Happy

In a recent case in Quebec, Nathalie Blanchard was on disability for depression. She had her benefits terminated because her insurance company, Manulife found pictures on her Facebook page where she was smiling and looking like she was having a good time. In other words, she didn’t look depressed so the insurance company cut off her benefits.

Blanchard is now suing Manulife to reinstate her disability benefits.

In New Brunswick the Court of The Queens Bench recently ordered a plaintiff to produce the contents of her Facebook page to the lawyers representing the defendant’s insurance company.

Online Information Must be Disclosed?

Court rules in each province require the parties to disclose any information they have that may be relevant to the matters at issue in litigation. This now includes any electronic information in possession of the parties. While this commonly refers to things like e-mail or digital documents, the courts have been extending the reach of this disclosure obligation to include online information.

In Leduc v. Roman the Ontario Court required the plaintiff to produce information from a “private” Facebook account. The judge in that decision stated:

“It is now incumbent on a party’s counsel to explain to the client, in appropriate cases, that documents posted on a party’s facebook profile may be relevant to the allegations made in the pleading.”

Facebook May Be Used For Cross Examination

In a recent case in Newfoundland, Terry v. Mullowney, the lawyer for the defendants used excerpts from the plaintiff’s facebook page to cross examine the plaintiff about his social life.

The judge commented on the use of this information:

“While not getting into the details of the excepts, they convince me that Mr. Terry (at least in the few months prior to his testimony in court) recorded on facebook had a rather full and active social life…I find it incredible that Mr. Terry’s social life miraculously improved in the few months he was communicating on facebook and that for the remainder of the time from 2001 to 2007 he essentially had little or no social life. Without this evidence I would have been left with a very different impression of Mr. Terry’s social life.”

Disclosure Obligations Extend Online

So in the future you can expect parties in litigation to demand complete disclosure of Facebook pages, Linkedin profiles, Twitter accounts and public Blogs. In short, any information that you post online can and may be used against you. Beware.

Continue reading "Facebook Being Used Against Personal Injury Victims" »

Direct Liability

The term vicarious liability comes up in personal injury claims frequently. In most cases, your claim will be against the person who directly caused your injuries. For example, if you are run over by a car while walking in a cross walk, you can sue the driver of the car who may be found directly liable (at fault) for your injuries.

Vicarious Liability

On the other hand, in some cases someone else may be liable (responsible) for compensating you for your injuries. This issue typically comes up in cases of employees who do something wrong during the course of their employment.

In the Course of Employment

The law has generally held that the employer will be vicariously liable (responsible) for any wrongful acts committed by an employee while the employee was acting in the general course of their duties.

So to take our care accident example, if you were run over by someone driving a car you might sue the driver who could be found directly liable. However, if the person is driving a delivery truck you may also sue the delivery company that owned the truck and employed the driver.

Vicarious Liability Important to Ensure Justice

The ability to hold an employer vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of employees is important because it encourages employers to properly supervise their employees to ensure that are performing their job duties in a safe and careful fashion. It is also important in the case of catastrophic personal injury claims where an individual defendant may not have sufficient insurance or assets to fully compensate the injured person. Being able to pursue the defendant’s employer means that there is another source of funds available to help pay the plaintiff’s personal injury claim.

Continue reading "What is “Vicarious Liability”? Halifax Personal Injury Lawyer Explains" »

Whirlwind Week for Auto Accident Victims

It’s been quite a week for anyone interested in Nova Scotia’s automobile insurance minor injury cap.

Court of Appeal Decision

On Tuesday Chief Justice MacDonald released the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hartling v. Nova Scotia.

The Plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge against Nova Scotia’s automobile insurance law which places a monetary cap of $2,500.00 on the compensation that injured car accident victims are entitled to receive for their pain and suffering.

Recap

During the original hearing, Justice Walter Goodfellow ruled that the legislation was not discriminatory and did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Nova Scotia Personal Injury Claims: “Minor Injury” Compensation Cap Constitutional

Justice Goodfellow released a second part to his decision where he determined that, if the legislation was discriminatory, the benefits of the legislation were not sufficient to justify the discrimination.

Benefits of “Minor Injury” Cap Legislation does not Justify Discrimination

Hope For Accident Victims

The decision offered hope to accident victims who felt that the Court of Appeal might give greater weight to the evidence of the adverse effects of the cap legislation.

Court of Appeal Dismisses Accident Victim’s Appeal

This week the Court of Appeal dashed the hopes of accident victims who have been told that the injuries they have suffered are minor and that compensation for pain is caped at $2500.00

Court of Appeal Agrees Legislation is Discriminatory

Chief Justice Smith agreed with the appellants on several issues:

Injured victims whose claims are capped by the legislation are treated differently from other automobile accident victims. Justice MacDonald ruled that this meets the distinction required by Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to establish discrimination.

The distinction is based on one of the prohibited ground of discrimination listed in the Charter. In this particular case accident victims were being discriminated against on the grounds of physical disability.

Chief Justice MacDonald acknowledged that minor injury victims are disadvantaged by the minor injury cap legislation.

Finally, Chief Justice MacDonald agreed that the court had to consider any evidence of prejudice or stereotype regardless of how limited it might be, in considering whether the legislation violates the Charter.

However, after conducting an analysis of the evidence for each of these points Chief Justice MacDonald determined that the court had to consider whether the legislation’s purpose (controlling increasing auto insurance premiums) out-weighed the discriminatory effects of the legislation.

Minor Injury Cap Doesn't Eliminate All Right to Recovery

Chief Justice MacDonald distinguished the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Martin v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board) which found that the way in which Nova Scotia’s workers compensation legislation treated victims of chronic pain was discriminatory. Chief Justice MacDonald stated that, in Martin, claimants were denied all right of recovery whereas under the automobile insurance “minor injury” cap, victims’ right to recover compensation was limited rather than eliminated.

Legislation Doesn't Discriminate Against Women

Chief Justice MacDonald also dismissed the appellant’s arguments that the legislation unduly discriminates against female accident victims. While acknowledging that women have been historically disadvantaged in the work place Chief Justice MacDonald feels that the root problem of the discrimination and reduction in women’s wages were caused by unrelated social issues, not the minor injury insurance cap.

Minor Injury Cap Upheld

The Court of Appeal has decided that the minor injury cap legislation is discriminatory. However the discrimination is not sufficient to trigger the equality provisions of Section 15 of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, the legislation discriminates. It just doesn’t discriminate enough to violate Canada’s constitution.

So there you have it, in Nova Scotia the minor injury compensation cap is constitutional and all of the limits and restrictions that the legislation places on innocent automobile accident victims are justified in pursuit of lower automobile insurance rates.

Supreme Court Denies Alberta Leave to Appeal

Accident victims in Alberta have been waiting for leave (permission) from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the decision of Morrow v. Zhang which upheld to constitutionality of Alberta’s minor injury automobile cap.

Minor Injury Cap Reinstated in Alberta

On Thursday morning the Supreme Court of Canada denied the accident victims’ leave to appeal. In other words, the Court wouldn’t even hear the victim’s appeal, let alone consider their arguments.

That means an appeal from Nova Scotia over the Hartling decision is also likely to be denied leave, since the Supreme Court only hears matters that have a national interest.

NDP to Repeal Minor Injury Cap

But not all hope is lost for accident victims.

Yesterday afternoon Premier Darrell Dexter confirmed the NDP government’s commitment to “scrap” the minor injury cap.

Premier Dexter was quoted as saying:

"The $2,500 cap is not fair to people who have suffered serious injury," he said.>"Insurance is a product designed to protect people. If you exclude people from protection through a $2,500 cap, then by definition you're not delivering the product that has been paid for."

Contact the Premier

Please contact the Premier to voice your support for the government’s plan to repeal the minor injury cap. You can contact his office here or

Telephone: 902-424-6600
Fax: 902-424-7648
Toll-free Message Line: 1-800-267-1993
E-mail Address: premier@gov.ns.ca
Address:
Office of the Premier
PO Box 726
Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3J 2T3.

Further Reading

My colleague David Brannen has posted a more thorough analysis of the hartling decision on his Nova Scotia Car Accident Law Blog. Take a look.

Continue reading "Court of Appeal Confirms Minor Injury Cap - NDP to Repeal Cap Law" »

The Discovery Process

One of the most important steps in any personally injury claim is the oral discovery. If you file a lawsuit for compensation for personal injuries you will be required to testify about your knowledge of the event that lead to the lawsuit and your knowledge of the injuries that you have suffered.

In other words; what happened? How badly were you injured? How have the injuries effected your life?

A discovery is basically a question and answer session where you swear (or affirm) to tell the truth. The question and answer session is recorded by a court reporter who will type up a transcript of all the questions and answers. That transcript can be used later in court.

Since more than 90% of civil lawsuits settle before trial, the oral discovery is probably the most important step in the litigation process. As the name implies, the discovery process allows each side to “discover” all there is to know about the other side’s case. Each side gets a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their claim and their opponents claim. They are able to judge how the plaintiff and defendant will appear if they have to testify in court.

In short, the discovery process provides a “dry run” for how the witness will testify at trial.

Before your discovery your lawyer will meet with you to prepare you for the discovery. I have prepared a report for all of my clients who are getting ready for discovery so that they can read it at their leisure and we can discuss any questions that they have. If you would like a copy, feel free to contact me through this blog.

Continue reading "What is a “Discovery”? Halifax Personal Injury Lawyer Explains" »

Is it better to be killed by someone's negligence in Canada or the United States?
I'm sure most people would answer that question: "None of the above". But the reason I ask is to point out the significant differences in compensation claims between Canada and the United States. I was remined, yet again, of these differences when I read a post by Ron Miller on his excellent Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog.

Wrongful Deaths Claims for Elderly Victims

Mr. Miller was explaining how wrongful death claims for elderly victims are valued in the state of Maryland. Defence counsel usually claim that the victim's claim needs to be discounted because, since they were elderly, their life expectancy was shorter than a younger person. Mr. Miller points out:

The “victim was old anyway” argument is offensive and cold…but not, relatively speaking, entirely untrue.

Wrongful Death Claims Different in Canada

But at least in the United States, the victim's estate can make a claim for compensation. As I pointed out last week, in my post Nova Scotia Personal Injury Claims: Compensation for Fatal Injuries , in Canada the victim's estate can't make a claim for the pain and suffering that caused the victim's death!

Fatal Injury Compensation Claims Limited in Nova Scotia

In Nova Scotia and other provinces in Canada, the family of wrongful death victims are limited to a claim for loss of care, guidance and companionship.

If you think it's tough to tell a grieving family: "I'm sorry, but your Granddad's death isn't worth much because he was old..." try telling them that Grandad's estate can't make a claim...at all!

Who Can Make a Claim?

Worse, only certain family members can make a claim for the loss of Granddad's care guideance and companionship and in Canada, those claims typically max out at around 60 thousand dollars.

The Winner Is...

So, to answer the question I asked above, if you are going to be killed as the result of someone else's negligence, at least in the United States your estate (your surviving family members) have a chance at receiving some reasonable measure of compensation for your death.

Here's hoping everyone reading this has a long, happy and negligence free life!

By the way, if you have questions about American personal injury claims, I highly recommend you take a look at Mr. Miller's blog.

How Do You Put a Price on the Loss of a Loved One?

I have already posted about how the courts calculate compensation for pain and suffering. But what happens if your family member died from their injuries?

There is no way to truly place a dollar value on the loss of a loved one due to a fatal injury. Law makers in Canada and the courts have struggled with the question of how to fairly compensate surviving family members for the loss of a loved one.

American Claims Very Different Than Canada

Many of us have read news reports of cases in the United States where surviving family members have been awarded huge sums of money for the death of a family member. Unfortunately, the laws in Canada regarding compensation for fatal injuries are very different, and compensation awards rarely reach the levels seen in American cases.

Different in Each Province

Each province in Canada has laws governing claims for compensation for fatal injuries. The laws allow a claim to be made by the family members of a deceased person where his or her death is caused by an intentional or negligent act.

Financial Losses Covered

Originally claims for compensation were limited to the monetary losses suffered as a result of the fatal injury. In other words, the actual out of pocket financial loss resulting from the person’s death.

No Compensation for Grief

The law does not take into account non-financial losses like the grief and sorrow experienced by family members.
Compensation for Loss of Companionship

Currently every province in Canada has legislation that allows certain family members to recover some measure of compensation for the loss of care, guidance and companionship that the deceased family member would have provided had they not passed away.

It is important to remember that each province has its own specific law with special rules governing which family members are entitled to make a claim, how the claims are to be assessed, and the amount of damages that can be recovered.

Who Can Make a Claim?

In any claim involving a fatal injury it is important that you speak to an experienced personal injury lawyer to determine which family members are eligible to make a claim for compensation and to ensure that their claim for compensation is properly calculated.

For example, in Nova Scotia, claims for loss of care, guidance and companionship can only be brought by parents, grandparents, children and spouses (including common law). Siblings (brothers and sisters) are not entitled to file a claim for compensation!

Every Case is Different

The amount of compensation that can be recovered in Nova Scotia depends a great deal on the nature of the relationship and the facts of each particular case. If you are considering filing a claim for compensation for the loss of a loved one it is vitally important that you speak to an experienced personal injury lawyer to ensure that all of the relevant facts and evidence are provided to the court to ensure that you receive full and fair compensation.

Continue reading "Nova Scotia Personal Injury Claims: Compensation for Fatal Injuries" »