Sentences with phrase «credibility of a plaintiff»

They can be helpful, but it's up to the judge or jury to make the ultimate decision about the credibility of the plaintiff,» Mahabir says.

This «tale of two plaintiffs,» shows how crucial the credibility of a plaintiff is in a personal injury trial.

Defense strategy focused on lack of credibility of plaintiffs and their experts.

In personal injury litigation the credibility of the Plaintiff is usually a key issue at trial and for this reason Rule 18 - A is rarely used.

Whether or not your case settles out of Court of not depends on a variety of factors, including but not limited to liability, damages, causation, pre-accident health, insurance coverage issues, credibility of the Plaintiff, likeability of the Plaintiff and which insurer you are dealing with.

Although the plaintiff's evidence was tested on cross-examination, the court noted that it could not test the credibility of the plaintiff without the particulars of the 13 positions to which she applied.

However, in the many personal injury and workers compensation cases I have had to evaluate in my career, one central factor stands out as the most decisive in determining what a personal injury or workers compensation case is worth: the credibility of the plaintiff or claimant.

[36] Here, the credibility of the plaintiff was a critical factor in the trial judge's assessment of quantum, and the evidence of the observers was intended to directly address the plaintiff's credibility.

Not exact matches

(c) The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

With respect to the latter, if the insurer is simply not prepared to make a settlement offer, the value of mediation will lie in trying to narrow and / or resolve some of the issues, better understand the parties» respective positions, and most importantly, allow the claims examiner to make their own assessment of the plaintiff regarding presentation and credibility in order to evaluate how the plaintiff will be perceived at trial.

[8] In Faedo v. Dowell and Wachter, M064051 (October 19, 2007) Vancouver, Curtis J. held that in a situation where the defendant put the plaintiff to the proof of having suffered any injury at all, thus making her credibility a crucial issue at trial, it was reasonable for the plaintiff to require the assistance of counsel.

The Plaintiff asked for double costs but Mr. Justice Affleck refused to award these finding it would not be appropriate in the face of credibility concerns and further with the Defendant enjoying some success at trial on one of the most contentious issues.

At trial the Court made some critical findings relating to the Plaintiff's credibility and awarded damages of just over $ 20,000.

Although there is no doubt that the plaintiff's credibility was a central issue in the case and he had much to do to convince the jury of his truthfulness, that issue deserved to be proved independent from psychiatric evidence that had no bearing on the physical injuries he claimed to have suffered.

The statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia says, «The Defendants, together and individually, undertook a campaign to destroy the Plaintiff's reputation from the position of authority and credibility granted to them by their offices.»

Because Wal - Mart is still investigating the claims and facts are still emerging, Miller believes that the plaintiffs» attorneys could suffer a loss of credibility if jurors realize that they filed suit without knowing more facts.

The Court had issues with the Plaintiff's credibility but did accept the collision caused some level of lingering injures.

Since litigation is inherently adversarial, defence counsel can challenge the plaintiff's credibility by bringing forward prior instances of fraud.

Some of these statements were not directly related to the plaintiff's medical condition, yet they were still inconsistent, which was relevant to a determination of his overall credibility as a witness.

Finally, Justice Ball took special exception to two submissions the plaintiff made in support of his credibility.

However, Justice Vickers concluded that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have brought her claim in Supreme Court for two reasons: (1) when the action was commenced, the plaintiff believed she was suffering from the accident and her pleadings included a claim for loss of earning capacity and disruption of the ability to earn income; and (2) ICBC put her credibility seriously in issue when it took the position that she had not suffered from any injury or any significant injury.

ICBC»S lawyer brought a costs application, seeking double costs from the date of service of either the first or last formal offer of the Defendant, to the date of trial, arguing that given the Plaintiff's credibility problems prior to trial, that the offers were reasonable, and ought to have been accepted.

In the context of civil litigation, and more specifically personal injury, these social media platforms are constantly placed under surveillance in order to obtain favorable evidence that put into question the Plaintiff's credibility.

Surveillance, when properly gathered, can be an effective tool to impugn a plaintiff's credibility and challenge the validity of her claim.

However, before surveillance can be used to impeach a plaintiff's credibility, counsel must comply with the requirements of Brown v Dunn, which requires thata witness be given the opportunity to explain or deny the evidence.8 In addition, the court must be satisfied that the surveillance meets the test for admissibility.

Here the Plaintiff» «bulldog «attitude did not reduce the value of his claim and in all likelihood assisted the Court in making positive credibility findings.

In response the plaintiff's counsel apparently conducted an in - depth investigation of the defendant, including her history of unusual behaviour in the neighbourhood, so as to challenge her own credibility and reliability.

The alternative — letting juries decide every «credibility» dispute, no matter how far - fetched of fanciful the plaintiff's testimony might be — was not sound jurisprudence.

[21] Based on a review of the evidence at trial, described in part above, and the cases cited, as well as a review of the submissions of counsel, I find that the offer to settle in the amount of $ 75,000 ought reasonably to have been accepted by the plaintiff having given consideration to the foreseeable credibility problems and the negative verdict of the jury.