Moellenbeck v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al., (1999) 12 B.C.T.C. 186 (SC)

• Judge: Thackray, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 12 B.C.T.C. 186 (SC)

Moellenbeck v. Ford Motor Co. (1999), 12 B.C.T.C. 186 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JN.101

Stephen Moellenbeck (plaintiff) v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. (defendants)

(02419)

Indexed As: Moellenbeck v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Cranbrook

Thackray, J.

May 12, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff passenger was injured in a motor vehicle accident on July 4, 1989 in British Columbia. His seatbelt broke in the accident. The plaintiff brought an action against the driver of the car in November 1989 and added the owner as a defendant in October 1991. He commenced this action against Ford Motor Co. of Canada (Ford) on July 23, 1991. An arbitration between the plaintiff and the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia respecting damages (uninsured motorists' protection) was held and a ruling, handed down on March 12, 1993, indicated that liability for the accident and the plain­tiff's injuries was admitted. The insurance coverage fell short of the award. No one appeared at the arbitration to represent Ford or TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. (TRW), which would be added as a defen­dant much later. On March 15, 1993, the plaintiff was granted an ex parte order to renew the writ against Ford. It was served on April 26, 1993. Ford filed a statement of defence on March 13, 1996, which, inter alia, asserted a limitations defence and claimed that Ford did not manufacture the seatbelt. The plaintiff responded that his mental condition pre­vented him from in­structing counsel for at least six weeks after the accident. On Febru­ary 10, 1997, in response to interrogatories, Ford informed the plaintiff that TRW was the manufacturer of the seatbelt. TRW was added as a defen­dant by ex parte order on May 22, 1997. An amended writ of sum­mons and amended statement of claim were filed on June 30, 1997, and served on TRW in Michigan on February 27, 1998. In the action, the plain­tiff sought to rehear the damage issue on the basis that the injuries had become much more significant since the arbitration award. TRW applied for an order setting aside the service and for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction over TRW or, conversely, should decline jurisdiction.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the applications.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1204

Service out of jurisdiction - Torts - Forum conveniens - See paragraphs 1 to 54.

Cases Noticed:

Bushell v. T & N plc et al. (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 36; 26 W.A.C. 36; 67 B.C.L.R.(2d) 330 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Krusel v. Firth et al. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 81; 5 W.A.C. 81; 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Minter v. Reeves (1979), 9 B.C.L.R. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Craig Broadcast Systems v. Magid (Frank N.), [1998] 3 W.W.R. 17; 123 Man.R.(2d) 252; 159 W.A.C. 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122; [1974] 2 W.W.R. 586, refd to. [para. 8].

Westec Aerospace Inc. v. Raytheon Air­craft Co. (1999), 122 B.C.A.C. 18; 200 W.A.C. 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

472900 B.C. Ltd. et al. v. Thrifty Canada Ltd. (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 233; 190 W.A.C. 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Ship Las Mercedes (Owners) v. Ship Abidin Daver (Owners); Ship Abidin Daver, Re, [1984] A.C. 398 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].

Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., [1987] A.C. 460; 71 N.R. 372; [1986] 3 All E.R. 843 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].

Bank of B.C. v. Singh (1987), 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 256 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Saskatchewan Credit Union Ltd. v. Central Park Enterprises Ltd. (1987), 22 B.C.L.R.(2d) 89 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Counsel:

Ron Buddenhagen, for the plaintiff;

Jack Giles, Q.C., and Lisa Warren, for the defendant, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc.

These applications were heard in Chambers at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 15, 1999, by Thackray, J., of the British Colum­bia Supreme Court, who filed the following decision on May 12, 1999.