Sentences with phrase «driving plaintiffs and defendants»
However, the incentives driving plaintiffs and defendants in these motions are drastically different, and this must be considered by the courts deciding costs.
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/ Not exact matches
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dismissing a defendant application requesting the production of a Plaintiff's Facebook postings, Twitter postings, Computer Hard Drive and Iphone.
Plaintiff, a motorcyclist, was injured when the Defendant, who was driving a large SUV, suddenly and without warning, made an abrupt left hand turn directly in front of him.
The plaintiff was driving a Nissan 2002 Sentra GXE 4 - door sedan and the defendant was driving a Honda 2005 Element 4 - door wagon.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff was lane - splitting, following too closely and not driving at a speed that was reasonable.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligent driving, but she also sued the city, county, and Department of Transportation for negligence in connection with the signals.
Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the trial Justice's ruling that the Defendant did not drive onto the shoulder of the road was a palpable and overriding error.
The court agreed with the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in the case, which involved a plaintiff who was injured when a crane he had leased from the defendant allegedly malfunctioned and drove itself over his foot and leg.
The plaintiff's mother had purchased a car from the defendant in 1989, and within two years of buying the car, she began to notice a strong smell of gasoline while driving.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant was driving negligently by speeding and not paying attention while the defendant argued that the plaintiff was negligent and claimed that he was tailgating the car when the accident happened.
The plaintiff was driving to work when the defendant's vehicle inexplicably crossed over the center median and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle head - on.
The parties agreed that on October 14, 2008, the defendant drove into the rear of the plaintiff's motor vehicle, which was momentarily stopped and being driven by the plaintiff.
During the trial, the plaintiff presented evidence of the defendant's driving history, which contained two prior instances in which the defendant was cited for driving while under the influence of alcohol in 1996 and 1983.