Q: I watch the law shows on television and always wonder if that’s what it’s really like in the courtroom. Are these shows realistic or are Canadian courts different?
A: These shows are at least as realistic as the average soap opera, medical drama, situation comedy or police show. With a couple of small exceptions, these shows are not realistic at all but can be quite entertaining.
It would also take me several columns to point out the differences between the Canadian and American legal systems so I’m going to limit myself to “causes of action” and “verdicts.”
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
A “cause of action” is the legal basis for bringing a lawsuit. A simple cause of action is breach of contract.
I pay you $5,000, you agree to renovate my home and do the work but I don’t pay you. You sue me for breach of contract.
In the U.S., their causes of action appear broader and they seem far more willing to accept new and innovative (and arguably crazy) causes of action.
There are also the verdicts to consider. A verdict is basically the decision in a case. It is a decision on the merits and a decision as to the amount of money the proven legal wrongdoing is worth. In numerous states within the U.S., the verdicts seem high compared to here.
When one combines the somewhat exotic causes of action with the high verdicts awarded, some outrageous outcomes result.
One of the most famous is that of Stella Liebeck. This woman was a passenger in a car that went through a McDonald’s drive-thru, when she spilled hot coffee on herself.
This caused fairly severe burns on six percent of her body. She went to hospital, had skin grafts and ended up with scars. She sued McDonald’s after they refused to pay her medical costs.
A mediator recommended a $250,000 settlement, which McDonald’s turned down. A jury gave Stella $160,000 but also made a punitive damage award against McDonald’s of $2.7 million.
A judge later reduced that amount to $480,000. Then McDonald’s settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
McDonald’s fared better when a man sued for injuries resulting from a cold drink. This man spilled his milkshake on his lap when he reached for his fries. While wiping up, he got into an accident.
His theory was that by having a drive-thru, the restaurant must know people are going to eat and drink while driving. His case was dismissed, but the judge refused to award McDonald’s its legal fees and it was still stuck with their costs of defending the lawsuit.
A California jury awarded $178,000 to a woman who sued her former fiancé for refusing to get married. She got $93,000 for pain and suffering, $60,000 for loss of income and $25,000 for psychiatric and counseling expenses. They’d been engaged for seven weeks.
A New York construction worker sued after being hit on the forehead by a falling beam. He was taken to emergency, where he claims hospital staff forced him to have a rectal examination.
He refused but they said it was necessary, so after a violent struggle, he was sedated and the exam was performed. The case has not yet made it to trial.
Perhaps because of the proliferation of these things in the U.S. and on TV, Canada is no longer immune from wacky lawsuits.
Waddah Mustapha, a hairstylist from Windsor, Ont., claimed significant mental distress and damage when he found a dead fly in his water bottle. Though he hadn’t opened or drank it, he said he’d been badly harmed. He actually won in an Ontario trial court, but both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his claim.
These cases are extreme and rare, especially in this country, but they do happen. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
Rick Danyliuk is a practising lawyer in Saskatoon with McDougall Gauley LLP. He also has experience in teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are intended as general advice only. He can be reached at thelaw@producer.com.
