- Thread starter
- Admin
- #41
According to the excellent site, yes!
Full week 2 results:
Columbus 2-4 VUFC
West Van 1-2 Westside
Chinter 3-2 MetroFord
BB5 5-0 Rinos
Croats 2-2 Norvan
Pomo 6-1 Sapperton
Standings going into Week 3
Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Premier [VMSL] Premier 2023/2024 Predictions, Results & Banter
- Thread starter Regs
- Start date
Full week 2 results:
Columbus 2-4 VUFC
West Van 1-2 Westside
Chinter 3-2 MetroFord
BB5 5-0 Rinos
Croats 2-2 Norvan
Pomo 6-1 Sapperton
Standings going into Week 3
Not really.
Columbus in VMSL
"Columbus" in FVSL to skirt NCAA rules and have SFU play all winter. I'm sure they will magically have a bunch of their valley games postponed before November
SoccerDaD14
Member
BB5 game abandoned today....midfielder taken away in an ambulance! took the ambulance almost an hour to get there.....2 injuries for BB5 today Nationals are 9 days away? Score was irrelevant but 1 - 0 to BB5 when stopped
Have you seen how your son tackles? Baby torpedo?
Rangerforever
Well-Known Member
Spankmemanky
Active Member
His son tackles like he was taught ….the wee hatchet
Unitedforever
Member
So do we all remember the lawsuit that happened in a north van unaffiliated league due to a reckless tackle? Well… Here we go again
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #51
FC Red Star
Active Member
North Vancouver rec soccer player awarded $103,000 in damages - BC | Globalnews.ca
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling could serve as a warning for anyone playing recreational sports about playing too rough after a rec player was seriously injured by an opponent.
globalnews.ca
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #53
Yeah, remember that BS but was wondering if something in the news regarding this weekend's incident.North Vancouver rec soccer player awarded $103,000 in damages - BC | Globalnews.ca
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling could serve as a warning for anyone playing recreational sports about playing too rough after a rec player was seriously injured by an opponent.
Unitedforever
Member
Yes, and now we have another new situation similar on the riseNorth Vancouver rec soccer player awarded $103,000 in damages - BC | Globalnews.ca
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling could serve as a warning for anyone playing recreational sports about playing too rough after a rec player was seriously injured by an opponent.
I thought that decision ripe for an appeal; seasoned ref only gives a yellow but it's worth civil sanctioning? Appellate courts are loathe to interfere with trial judgements because the trial judge is who actually saw the witnesses testify etc etc... seems to me the same argument could have been made with respect to the referee's assessment... but, I wasn't part of that trial, so maybe there's more to the story...
Justice these days is not cheap and if an injured player like the BB5 player took civil action they'd have to find a trial lawyer willing to do this on a contingency agreement where they could negotiate up to 40% of the award they were seeking. Not sure these days if they can do better and get a starving lawyer to accept say 15 to 25%. Vehicle injury claims are maxed 33 and 1/3%.
The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff both on the award and Scale B legal fees (which likely won't pay all the legal fees but some of the plaintiff's cost.
This is not a complicated case and it's a good learning case given how the trial judge lays out the differences across Canada based on the plaintiff's submission in cases like this.
2023 BCSC 349 (CanLII) | Miller v Cox | CanLII
Access all information related to judgment Miller v Cox, 2023 BCSC 349 (CanLII) on CanLII.
www.canlii.org
In reading the Reasons for Judgment I see no grounds for an appeal.
While I'm not a lawyer, I've been involved in my career with litigation over many years.
BC courts use a comparative approach in injury claims and the Court of Appeal would only reduce the quantum if the comparative approach was clearly of minimal value in that case. That's a stretch in this type of injury case.
The only issue at trial was if the defendant was negligent.
Was the conduct of the defendant reasonable and acceptable conduct in how the slide tackle was executed OR was it "outside the risks which a reasonable competitor would assume in the game."
Turns out that other provinces use a different standard of care than BC does and as this appeal would have gone to the BC Court of Appeal, the trial judge no doubt used the BC standard - the "west coast" approach. Assumably the defendant counsel pushed for the other cases and a higher burden of proof as emerging law.
An injured player...in BC faces a much less substantial burden of proof of an actionable injury than does a similar player in other provinces. Cases mentioned in Manitoba and Ontario consider "intentional conduct (or at least recklessness) must be the standard.
These other cases mean the player assumed a level of risk knowing the game came with risks and a normal slide tackle that led to injury was not beyond the standard of care owed by a defendant.
This couldn't have helped defendant Cox's case:
Findings and Disposition
[76] With the exception of Mr. Cox, I find all of the witnesses to be straightforward and credible. Some of the witnesses were closer to the tackle and had a better view of the incident. Nevertheless, the consistency of their evidence allows me to find, based on a balance of probabilities, the central facts in this case.
The bottom line with witnesses is that if everyone is telling the exact same story the trial judge would be more skeptical.
For witnesses with no experience in testifying, it's tough to testify on your own behalf as your lawyer putting you on the stand would give you easy questions but cross-examination exposes inconsistencies.
However, in a case like this a defendant would have to give their own version as it's not like a criminal case where it's best to just STFU and say nothing at all.
While this was a straightforward case of negligence there was a lot more to the case before trial. That stuff was more complex. This was a wild and crazy case with the league being drawn in and another player.
This was not settled but the costs are a lot more if the plaintiff loses.
[2] The plaintiff seeks double costs at Scale B from the date of an offer made to the defendant Karl Cox on November 7, 2022. In addition, the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant is liable to pay the costs of certain other defendants and third parties who settled before trial.
Here's a better write-up of the legal implications of this type of case for leagues, teams and players by a top law firm:
This was not settled but the costs are a lot more if the plaintiff loses.
[2] The plaintiff seeks double costs at Scale B from the date of an offer made to the defendant Karl Cox on November 7, 2022. In addition, the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant is liable to pay the costs of certain other defendants and third parties who settled before trial.
2023 BCSC 1058 (CanLII) | Miller v Cox | CanLII
Access all information related to judgment Miller v Cox, 2023 BCSC 1058 (CanLII) on CanLII.
www.canlii.org
Here's a better write-up of the legal implications of this type of case for leagues, teams and players by a top law firm:
Key takeaway
The effect of Miller v. Cox, and the different approach to finding fault in British Columbia vis-à-vis other provinces, is that an athlete in British Columbia may find him- or herself liable for an opponent’s injuries following an overly aggressive play, even if the athlete did not have a clear intent to injure his or her opponent. In contrast, the same athlete may not face liability in Ontario, for instance, if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate a deliberate intent to cause serious harm. Athletes in British Columbia who are aware of this risk may second-guess making an overly aggressive challenge or hit, because the penalties may extend well beyond the playing surface.1) most lawyers operating on contingency charge 25% if the matter resolves. Yeah, we charge more if we have to strap up and run the trial. Seems fair. Oh, and 25% of nothing is nothing, so there's considerable risk in taking on cases such as these. The evidence never comes out exactly as you expect - and that's usually to the detriment of the party prosecuting the case. So yeah, if we're taking on the risk, there should be some reward at the end of it for a job well done. Won't apologize for that.
2) costs are a partial subsidy of the legal fees; even after trial plaintiffs are usually lucky if they cover half the bill.
3) the potential appeal I was referencing was in relation to liability, not damages. very different approaches to review of those two things
4) the issue to me isn't which standard to use. it's whether, even by the "west-coast standard", liability should have been found. I suspect had the plaintiff called any number of TTP'ers, their views on what a reasonably assumed level of risk is would differ significantly from was was found in this case.
5) no competent plaintiff's counsel lobs softballs at their own client and then sits down. we get out in front of the awkward parts of the evidence so as to blunt the effect of cross-examination even if it does score points. trial advocacy 101.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #59
Week 4 results
(BB5 vs Chinter did not play as agreement to postpone so BB5 don't get hurt any more heading into Nationals later this week)
Columbus 5-0 Rinos
WestVan 0-4 MetroFord
Croats 2-1 Westside
Norvan 2-3 Sapperton
PoMo 1-3 VUFC
(BB5 vs Chinter did not play as agreement to postpone so BB5 don't get hurt any more heading into Nationals later this week)
Columbus 5-0 Rinos
WestVan 0-4 MetroFord
Croats 2-1 Westside
Norvan 2-3 Sapperton
PoMo 1-3 VUFC
Members online
No members online now.
