Sentences with phrase «trial findings of negligence»

Among other things, the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted the trial findings of negligence in continuing to issue clean audit opinions after knowing of deliberate deception by Livent management and what Deloitte itself characterised as «aggressive, if not questionable, accounting practices» on the part of Livent management.

Not exact matches

Torts — Negligence — Medical malpractice — Causation — Trial judge finding respondent obstetrician liable for applicant infant's injuries — Whether, under principles described in Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311, it is open for a trier of fact to find causation by drawing an inference based on all the evidence led at trial, notwithstanding the fact that the defence has led some evidence to the contrary — Whether, in an informed consent case, the causation issue is decided in accordance with the majority or the minority opinions of the House of Lords in Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1 A.C.Trial judge finding respondent obstetrician liable for applicant infant's injuries — Whether, under principles described in Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311, it is open for a trier of fact to find causation by drawing an inference based on all the evidence led at trial, notwithstanding the fact that the defence has led some evidence to the contrary — Whether, in an informed consent case, the causation issue is decided in accordance with the majority or the minority opinions of the House of Lords in Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1 A.C.trial, notwithstanding the fact that the defence has led some evidence to the contrary — Whether, in an informed consent case, the causation issue is decided in accordance with the majority or the minority opinions of the House of Lords in Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1 A.C. 134.

[1] This is an appeal from a summary trial judgment that found the City of Salmon Arm («City») liable in negligence for injuries suffered when Cindy Lee Binette tripped over the metal base of a broken traffic sign that was protruding from the sidewalk.

At trial, it was found that the evidence of Deloitte's negligence in its audits of Livent was overwhelming and that approximately $ 85 million in damages were suffered after Deloitte failed to identify that Livent was insolvent starting in 1997.

In allowing the appeal and sending the negligence issue to trial, the Court of Appeal held that it would have been helpful had Warkentin, J. made a finding on this point.

In Binette v. Salmon Arm (City), 2018 BCCA 150, the court upheld the verdict of the trial judge finding the city liable to the plaintiff in negligence in circumstances where the plaintiff tripped over a protruding piece of metal from a city sidewalk.

Well respected among his peers and recognized as a top trial lawyer, Edward Havas (Ed), President and a founding member of Dewsnup, King & Olsen, focuses his practice on representing survivors and families of victims in negligence, product liability, air crash, mining disaster (such as the deadly Crandall Canyon coal mine collapse of 2007), medical malpractice and other catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases.

Read the Medical Malpractice Lawyers» Trial Report: Jury Finds Negligence, Awards $ 11.48 Million in Newborn's Death Wrongful death trial: 8 - day old twin at Beth Israel Hospital died of necrotizing enterocolitis — jury finds medical negliTrial Report: Jury Finds Negligence, Awards $ 11.48 Million in Newborn's Death Wrongful death trial: 8 - day old twin at Beth Israel Hospital died of necrotizing enterocolitis — jury finds medical negliFinds Negligence, Awards $ 11.48 Million in Newborn's Death Wrongful death trial: 8 - day old twin at Beth Israel Hospital died of necrotizing enterocolitis — jury finds medical Negligence, Awards $ 11.48 Million in Newborn's Death Wrongful death trial: 8 - day old twin at Beth Israel Hospital died of necrotizing enterocolitis — jury finds medical neglitrial: 8 - day old twin at Beth Israel Hospital died of necrotizing enterocolitis — jury finds medical neglifinds medical negligencenegligence

Regrettably, therefore, there must be a new trial, unless the hospital can show that there was no evidence to support a finding of causation based on the nurses» negligence.

At trial, the Hospital, Nurse Bellini and the three doctors were found liable in negligence and damages were awarded to the plaintiffs in the amount of $ 4 million.

Appellate courts must be cautious, however, in finding that a trial judge erred in law in his or her determination of negligence, as it is often difficult to extricate the legal questions from the factual.

In Fisher v. Victoria Hospital, [1] the first trial in this action, the trial judge found the hospital's nurses negligent and that negligence a but - for cause of the infant's injuries on the balance of probability.

The hospital was not able to show that there was no evidence upon which a trial judge, acting properly could have found causation established on the balance of probability, so the case was sent back for a new trial, only on the issue of whether the nurses» negligence was a cause of the child's injury.

[65] In my view, the trial judge's error is found in the chain of inferences that he identifies in the following critical passages of his reasons:... [66] The trial judge's causation analysis hinges on his view that it «is a matter of common sense that the negligence or delay on the part of the defendants allowed the wound to reach a complicated state and lead to rapid unpredictable consequences».

For the 1996 period the trial judge's findings of negligence were limited to a finding that Deloitte failed to detect that several types of entries were improperly accounted for in the financial statements.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants early in the case proceedings, finding that the plaintiff could not sue the government for its alleged negligence, based on sovereign immunity grounds.

The Defendants also argued that the act of negligence which formed the basis for Mr Justice Cross's liability finding had never been canvassed with the Defendants» witnesses at trial so that they might address or contest such alleged negligence.

In a decision that was released last month by the Indiana Supreme Court, the dismissal of a negligence lawsuit against a security company that employed a man who shot and paralyzed a woman while on the job was reversed, and the security company may be found liable for the woman's injuries through a settlement or jury trial.

A jury trial in 2012 resulted in a finding of negligence on the part of the hospital, but jurors reportedly could not reach an agreement with regard to damages.

Accordingly, those with possibly meritorious negligence claims should consider finding counsel well experienced in trial practice and the art of convincing trial judges and juries.

The Court of Appeal indicated in strong terms that if it had been required to consider the cross appeal, it would not have upheld the trial judge's finding of negligence.

The trial judge's finding of negligence was not at issue on the appeal.

The trial judge had thus made a finding of negligence without the necessary factual foundation, another example of a processing error similar to that seen in some of the cases noted above.

The Court of Appeal reversed the finding of negligence, saying «There is no evidence to support the trial judge's finding that Dr. Carroll ought to have taken a smaller biopsy.»

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the trial judge's finding of negligence but, as in the above noted cases, held that there was an absence of evidence on causation.

The trial judge dismissed the claim against the aunt and uncle, but held that the parents knew the grandfather was a pedophile and found them liable in negligence and for a breach of fiduciary duty.

With respect to the appellant's counterclaim for solicitors» negligence, the trial judge found that the lawyers had properly accounted for the disputed proceeds of the Baranyai settlement.

[4] On its appeal, Ontario accepts that it owed a duty of care to the Berendsens but submits that the trial judge erred in her finding of negligence.

Lord Mance and Lord Hughes agreed with the majority that the present case concerned a positive act, not an omission, and that the finding of the trial judge on negligence should be restored.

The trial court held that the agents were at fault under breach of contract and negligence claims and found the agents jointly and severally liable in the amount of $ 536,250.