The alleged negligence occurred during the patient's transport from New York to the UK
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the plaintiffs' right to a jury trial in a medical negligence case involving an air ambulance provider.
The plaintiffs, Victoria and Michael Abbott-Fleming alleged that negligence by Fox Flight Inc., an air ambulance company, and its staff caused a sciatic nerve injury to Victoria, ultimately resulting in the above-knee amputation of her left leg.
The court declined the defendants’ request to discharge the jury, opting for a “wait and see” approach. The court noted that while the case is complex, the plaintiffs’ right to a jury trial, protected under Ontario law, should not be dismissed prematurely.
The incident occurred during Victoria’s transport from New York to the United Kingdom in January 2014. She had been hospitalized with severe pneumonia and placed in a medically induced coma. During the flight, she was restrained with tight straps that she claimed caused discomfort but was unable to communicate due to a tracheostomy. Upon arrival in the UK, delays in hospital admission extended her transport time, and she experienced numbness in her left foot shortly after. This condition, according to the plaintiffs, led to the aggravation of her pre-existing Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and necessitated the amputation of her left leg.
The defendants argued that the case’s complexity, including conflicting medical opinions and causation issues, made it unsuitable for a jury. They emphasized the challenges in parsing the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition from the alleged new injury caused during transport and pointed to the numerous expert witnesses—eight for the plaintiffs and 12 for the defendants—whose testimony would involve highly technical evidence.
The plaintiffs countered that juries routinely handle complex medical and personal injury cases. They maintained that issues of standard of care, causation, and damages, while nuanced, are not beyond the understanding of a lay jury, particularly with proper guidance from the presiding judge.
The Superior Court acknowledged the challenges but emphasized that jury trials are capable of addressing such issues. The court highlighted that the trial’s anticipated length of eight to ten weeks, as well as the volume of documents, did not justify striking the jury notice at this stage. The court also noted that many complexities are often resolved or simplified as a case progresses, particularly after pre-trial proceedings and the narrowing of contested issues.
The defendants raised concerns about potential disruptions if the plaintiff, due to her medical condition, could not complete her testimony in one session. The court deemed this speculative, noting that such scenarios could be addressed if they arose during trial.
