Morrison v. Coulter et al., (1991) 1 B.C.A.C. 48 (CA)

• Judge: Wallace, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 06, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 48 (CA)

Morrison v. Coulter (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 48 (CA);

    1 W.A.C. 48

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/respondents/appellants by cross-appeal) and Tracy Hicks, Richard Morgan Bacchus, Carol MacKenzie and James Martin (defendants/respondents by cross-appeal)

(No. CA012646)

Indexed As: Morrison v. Coulter et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Wallace, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A.

June 6, 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 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.

Practice - Topic 5006

Conduct of trial - Reopening of trial to hear additional evidence - The issue at trial was whether the plaintiff's partial paralysis above the waist and total paralysis below the waist was caused by an accident or improper hospital treatment - Medical evidence accepted by all parties required reopening the trial, because the court's fact findings respecting causation were anatomically impossible - The expert evidence was admitted at the reopened trial, but further evidence from a defence expert, relevant to the main issue (causation), was not admitted - The court subsequently found all paralysis caused at the hospital - The British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial - The defendant's evidence should have been admitted.

Cases Noticed:

Clayton v. British American Securities Ltd., [1934] 3 W.W.R. 259 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

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

   Robert Duncan Ross and J. Simmons, for the respondent, Brent Morrison;

J. Dives and D. Holubitsky, for the respondents by cross-appeal, Elizabeth Trees, Bonnie Charlton and Langley Memorial Hospital.

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 6, 1991, Wallace, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.