Aviva Canada accused of acting like ‘peeping Tom’ in undercover operation targeting collision repair shops
_______________________________________________
Saving Joint and Several Liability
Where more than one party is at fault and causes harm to someone, they are, in law, equally responsible to pay out the total amount of damages owing to the injured person. This happens frequently in car accident cases where an at-fault driver’s insurance policy limits are not adequate to cover the injured victim’s damages.
http://otlablog.com/saving-joint-several-liability/?platform=hootsuite
[21] This was not a frivolous case. As I stated to the jury in my charge, there was evidence that would have supported findings in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff should not be penalized unduly for proceeding with the action and taking it to trial. This is not a case for substantial indemnity costs.
[22] I have not applied Rule 49.10 to the earlier offers. Had I done so, the plaintiff’s costs would be truncated as of the January 2016 date and she would be liable for the defendants’ costs thereafter. Instead I have attempted to find a number that is greater than that which might have been generated had I ignored those offers entirely but still appears fair to both parties and in keeping with the objective of the rules. I have fixed the costs after reviewing the bills of costs, applying Rule 49.10 to the fully compliant offer and having regard to the earlier offers under Rule 49.13. Subject to the adjustments discussed above, the bills of costs are not unreasonable
[23] The ultimate objective is fairness to the parties. The defendants are entitled to a level of indemnity for beating their offers. The objective is not to penalize the plaintiff unduly or to terrorize future plaintiffs. Ultimately, however, it is the price of admission to our litigation system that proceeding to trial carries with it the risk of costs.