Judge can sufficiently instruct jury on issues relating to rescuer law, ruling says
In a case where a woman was injured while trying to save somebody else, the British Columbia Supreme Court declined to strike a jury notice since it could not call the matter or its issues significantly complex or intricate.
On May 26, 2018, a man sitting in an electric wheelchair was crossing the railway on Broadway Street in Chilliwack, BC, when his wheels appeared to get stuck between the rail tracks. Since a train was approaching, the plaintiff tried to free the wheelchair from the tracks. However, the train ended up striking and injuring the plaintiff and killing the man she was attempting to assist.
The case of Callaghan v Canadian National Railway Company, 2025 BCSC 569, arose when the plaintiff requested compensation for the physical, emotional, and financial damages she allegedly suffered due to the incident.
The plaintiff settled her claims against some of the parties involved in the case, but not her claims against the Canadian National Railway Company and two individual defendants. She filed a jury notice in May 2024.
The remaining defendants applied to strike the jury notice and asked the court to hear the trial without a jury. They alleged that this was a very complex case involving:
The plaintiff argued that this case was not more complex than many other motor vehicle or personal injury cases. She claimed that jury and non-jury personal injury trials alike commonly saw the types of medical and other experts involved in this case and that juries expected and routinely handled conflicts among experts.
The plaintiff’s counsel added that the jury could reach a proper and fair decision as long as there would be consultation and formulation of the appropriate jury questions and jury instructions regarding the relevant law.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the application of the defendants.
The court ruled that a jury working with properly crafted questions and instructions could render a just and proper decision. The court held that this case did not involve an unusually large number of litigants or complex or intricate issues.
The court explained that the applicable legislation and regulations were not more complicated or confusing than most legislation. The court added that the trial judge could sufficiently explain these points and the issues relating to rescuer law to the jury through the proper instructions.
The court determined that the number and types of experts involved in this matter were not unusual compared with other significant personal injury claims, many of which routinely included assessments of liability apportionment.
Read next: What does liability mean in personal injury claims?
The court noted that, since there was a presumptive right to a jury trial in a personal injury case, it would only strike a jury notice should if the applicant could show that a jury could not fairly try the issues under the criteria in rr. 12-6(5)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009.
