Chapman v Chapman, 2013 BCSC 1176

An mva.

P was not represented.

D was not represent.

ICBC was a third party. ICBC was represented.

P lost.

Should P have lost?

I’m not going to recount the facts.

Instead, I’ll suggest this.

Imagine the case argued on a failure to warn basis.

Would P have lost?

Or, to make it more obvious:

Turn the case into a medical malpractice action based on failure to warn.

Treat the parents” evidence as the equivalent of the doctor admitting he or she failed to warn the plaintiff of something material.

Would P have lost?

If you conclude that she would not have, why did she lose in this case?

Does anybody think that everybody at ICBC who handled the filed didn’t see what the real issue was?