The injury claimant was a nine year old passenger sitting on the driver side rear seat of a 2006 Nissan Pathfinder when it was struck by another vehicle. As a result, the claimant sustained a near complete spinal cord transection resulting in him becoming a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic. The allegation is that the spinal cord injury was caused by the shoulder belt being improperly placed over his right shoulder instead of properly placed over his left shoulder.(Sidhu v. Hiebert,2018 BCSC 401)

This is an application by Nissan  for the claimant to deliver particulars pursuant to Rules 3-7(18) and (22) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.  An order for delivery of particulars will be made where particulars are necessary to inform a party of the case it has to meet and in order to assist it to properly prepare for trial.

As to the function of particulars the judge quotes the often cited case  of Cansulex Ltd. v. Perry, [1982] B.C.J. No. 369 at para. 15 (C.A.):

(1)        to inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet as distinguished from the mode in which that case is to be proved;

(2)        to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at the trial;

(3)        to enable the other side to know what evidence they ought to be prepared with and to prepare for trial;

(4)        to limit the generality of the pleadings;

(5)        to limit and decide the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is required; and

(6)        to tie the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not included.

There were several orders for the claimant to produce particulars a summary of the main items are as follows:

a) The age, weight, and height, or range of age, weight, and height, of the cohort of children whom the plaintiff alleges are “Forgotten Children” and “have outgrown booster seats, but are too small to be safely restrained in systems and/or seat belts designed for adults”;

b)  “Automotive industry literature” identifying the alleged defects in restraint systems and/or seat belts for children; and

c) Allegations that Nissan “misled” the purchaser, owner, and/or users of the Pathfinder.

d) That the parties reach an agreement on the particular height and weight, or range of height and weight, of the plaintiff on the date of the collision.

Posted By Mr. Renn A.  Holness, B.A. LL.B.- Called to the BC Bar 1995

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment