Morrison v. Coulter et al., (1991) 3 B.C.A.C. 24 (CA)

• Judge: Wallace, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 21, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 24 (CA)

Morrison v. Coulter (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 24 (CA);

    7 W.A.C. 24

MLB headnote and full text

Brent Daniel  Morrison (plaintiff/respondent/appellant by cross-appeal) v. William G. Coulter (defendant/appellant/respondent by cross-appeal) and Elizabeth Trees, Bonnie Charlton and Langley Memorial Hospital (defendants/ appellants/respondents by cross-appeal)

(CA012646)

Indexed As: Morrison v. Coulter et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Wallace, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A.

June 21, 1991.

Summary:

A motor vehicle accident victim (Morrison) was transported to hospital and treated. Morrison was now completely paralyzed below the waist and partially paralyzed in his upper extremities. Morrison brought an action for damages against the hospital, the persons who treated him and the ambulance staff. The issue was whether his paralysis occurred in the accident or during his transportation to hospital or treatment.

The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed the action in part. The court held that the paralysis below the waist was caused by the accident and the defendants were not liable for that injury. The court held that the upper extremity paralysis was caused at the hospital by improper restraint. Before judgment was entered medical evidence accepted by all parties established that the factual basis for the trial judge's factual findings on causation were anatomically impossible. The trial judge accordingly reopened the trial and heard additional evidence from neurosurgeons. The trial judge refused to allow the defendants to introduce further expert evidence critical to the issue of causation.

The British Columbia Supreme Court subsequently reversed its previous finding on causation and held that both paralysis above and below the waist was caused in the hospital. One of the defendants appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 1 B.C.A.C. 48, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The trial judge erred in refusing the defendant leave to introduce relevant evidence that was central to the issue of causation. Disagreement arose over the operative part of the judgment and it was discovered that the style of cause was incorrect.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the following Supplementary Reasons, stated that Trees, Charlton and Langley were appellants not cross-appellants. The appealing defendants should not have described the defendants against whom the action had been dismissed as "respondents". The plaintiff's notice of cross-appeal should have been limited to the variation sought by the plaintiff against the appealing defendants. The four defendants against whom the action had been dismissed could not be respondents by way of cross-appeal. The court restated the terms of judgment to reflect the changes.

Counsel:

Harvey J. Grey, Q.C., and J. Lepp, for the appellant, William G. Coulter;

   John G. Dives and Don J. Holubitsky, for the appellants, Elizabeth Trees, Bonnie Charlton and Langley Memorial Hospital;

Robert D. Ross, Q.C., and Jonathan Simon, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 6 and 7, 1991, at Vancouver, B.C., before Wallace, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On June 21, 1991, the following supplementary reasons for judgment were delivered by the Court.