Welcome to the jury decision-making study (2)

1. Welcome to the jury decision-making study (2)

2. Under current law, where injuries sustained by a plaintiff are the result of negligence of a company – as was found with Southside Painting – the victim is entitled to sue for damages. Therefore, what needs to be determined from this hearing, is the amount of damage that was suffered by the plaintiff as a result of this negligence. Ladies and gentlemen, your purpose as members of the jury is to make a decision concerning the extent of damages suffered by the plaintiff, Ms Tate. The first part of the trial found that the plaintiff was a victim of negligence by the defendant company Southside Painting. Due to Southside Painting’s failure to ensure that adequate safety standards were in place concerning the transport of tools and equipment on their vehicles, the plaintiff was struck by an unsecured ladder. Beginning with the plaintiff’s case, you will now hear an opening statement from the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr Baker, followed by the presentation of the plaintiff’s witness. Mr McLeod, counsel for the defendant, may elect to cross-examine these witnesses. As a consequence of this incident, the plaintiff suffered injuries to her throat and vocal cords, resulting in both pain and suffering, and considerable time off from her job as a personal assistant. Judge Hamilton

3. My name is Martin Baker and I will be representing Ms Tate in this matter. In the course of the hearing we will present evidence to you demonstrating the extent of damages suffered by my client. As with any business or trade, companies have a duty of care to ensure standards of safety to protect not only their employees, but members of the public as well. The evidence we will present to you clearly demonstrates that as a result of Southside Painting’s negligence, my client has sustained considerable pain and suffering, and loss of income. After presenting our evidence we will ask you to compensate our client for damages, which in our estimation amount to no less than $250,000. Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

4. (The plaintiff, Ms Tate, is sworn in by the bailiff)

5. Owing to the nature of Ms. Tate’s injuries, my client is unable to testify verbally. As such, she will type her responses on a computer provided by the court and the court reporter will read her responses out loud. Ms. Tate, please describe the nature of your employment and your subsequent earnings. Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

6. I am a Personal Assistant for a financial company, where I have been employed for 18 months. Before becoming a personal assistant I worked as a secretary. My annual salary prior to the surgery was $68,000. Ms Tate – plaintiff (spoken by court reporter)

7. Could you describe the events which you experienced earlier this year on Thursday, the 28th of February? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

8. After finishing work around 6:15 pm that day, I left the building and began walking to the bus stop like I did every afternoon. While waiting for the traffic lights to change before crossing Miller Street, I was struck by a large object and collapsed onto the pavement. Upon waking, I realised I was in the hospital. I felt extreme pain in my throat, where I had been hit. Ms Tate – plaintiff (spoken by court reporter)

9. After waking in hospital did the doctor explain what had happened to you? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

10. The doctor explained that bystanders had witnessed the ladder flying off the back of a truck, it struck me in the neck. Thankfully, an ambulance was called almost right away. Ms Tate – plaintiff (spoken by court reporter)

11. What kind of treatment did you receive in the hospital? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

12. At the hospital I experienced extreme pain in my throat and neck, as well as some respiratory difficulties. My initial treatment was mostly supportive and involved securing my airway, fluid resuscitation, investigation of the extend of my injuries, and the administration of pain relieving drugs. I was released from the hospital two and a half weeks later after tests determined that no other complications were likely. Following this, I was referred to a specialist, Dr Judith Willis, for ongoing treatment and rehabilitation. Ms Tait – plaintiff (spoken by court reporter)

13. What kind of impact has this incident had on your life? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

14. I have suffered a great deal, my throat is constantly in pain and I am only just beginning to speak again. My specialist has told me that I will not make a full recovery for about 12 to 18 months and until that time my voice will be hoarse and speaking will be painful. As a result, I am unable to work at my job which requires me to speak constantly throughout the day Ms Tait – plaintiff (spoken by court reporter)

15. I have no further questions. Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

16. Any questions for Ms Tate, Mr McLeod? Judge Hamilton

17. Mr McLeod – defense attorney Ms Tate, you state that you have been a Personal Assistant for a considerable time?

18. Yes, for about 5 years. Ms Tate – plaintiff (spoken by court reporter)

19. Mr. McLeod – defense attorney Would it therefore not be possible to get employment in a similar business? Perhaps in an administrative area which involves less speaking?

20. Perhaps, but I saw my role in this company leading to better opportunities, possibly in management. Ms Tate – plaintiff (spoken by court reporter)

21. No further questions. Mr McLeod – defense attorney

22. (Dr Willis is sworn in by the bailiff)

23. Please state your name and occupation. Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

24. I am Dr. JudithWillis. I am a registered Surgeon currently employed at the Toronto General Hospital. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

25. Dr Willis, would you describe your academic background and training to the jury? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

26. I graduated from McGill University, with first class honours in medicine. I then completed a residency and internship also through McGill University and was awarded a university medal of excellence. I have been a registered surgeon for ten years during which time I have mainly been involved in public and private Hospitals. I am also regularly invited to present at academic conferences. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

27. Your honour, in the interest of expediting the proceedings we are willing to stipulate that Dr Willis qualifies as an expert in the field of medicine. Mr McLeod – defense attorney

28. Thank you, Mr McLeod. Dr Willis, are you familiar with Ms Tate’s case and the injuries sustained? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

29. Yes, Ms. Tate was referred to me as a patient while she was in the hospital. During my career, I have dealt with a number of similar injuries involving the throat and vocal chords. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

30. What in your view would be an appropriate method for determining the extent of the injuries sustained by Ms. Tate, and the necessary recovery period? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

31. In my opinion the most accurate way of determining the extent of throat injuries sustained by the patient is by conducting a Video Strobe Voice Evaluation. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

32. What exactly is this assessment and how is it performed? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

33. The evaluation is basically a test in which video images are taken of the patient’s voice box and then stored by computer. In Ms. Tate’s case, two methods were used to take the pictures of her voice box, looking through the mouth and looking through the nose. Both methods entail placing a very small malleable tube in the mouth or nose, and down the patient’s throat. The patient is then asked to speak or make a vocal sound, while video recordings are recorded during this period. Both methods generally take less than five minutes. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

34. What happens to the video images? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

35. The video is reviewed by a speech therapist with specialised training in the evaluation process, and a report containing the results and recommendations is produced. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

36. Were the results of Ms. Tate’s assessment reviewed by yourself, and if so, what were your conclusions? Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

37. They were. I concluded that Ms. Tate had suffered severe tissue injury associated with the impact of the ladder. The extent of the injuries indicated to me that Ms. Tate would need at least 14 or more months of recuperation before being able to resume normal, pain free speech. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

38. So Dr. Willis, is it your expert opinion that Ms. Tate will be unable to speak normally for at least 14 months. Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

39. That is correct. Prolonged speaking during that period will cause the patient pain and she will have a much hoarser than normal voice. For full recovery I recommend that she keeps speaking to a minimum for at least 14 months. Dr Willis – expert witness (surgeon)

40. Thank you, Dr Willis. I have no further questions and we rest our case. Mr Baker – prosecuting attorney

41. Mr McLeod – defence attorney I have no questions for Dr Willis. Mr McLeod – defense attorney

42. (Cross examination by defence counsel, Mr Peter McLeod)

43. Mr McLeod – defence attorney My name is Peter McLeod and as you are aware I am representing the defendant, Southside Painting. In response to the testimony you have just heard from the plaintiff’s expert, we will present alternative evidence which proves the damages incurred by Ms. Tate were much less than what has been suggested. At the end of this presentation, I will recommend that you award a reasonable amount of damages to Ms. Tate of no greater than $40,000. Mr McLeod – defense attorney

44.  (Dr Charles Taylor is sworn in by the bailiff).

45. Mr McLeod – defence attorney Please state your occupation for the jury, Dr Taylor. Mr McLeod – defense attorney

46. I am employed as an Ear, Nose and Throat specialist for a private practice in Toronto. I also receive referrals from Mount Sinai hospital. Dr Taylor – expert witness (ENT specialist)

47. Mr McLeod – defence attorney Please describe your education and experience. Mr McLeod – defense attorney

48. I received my PhD at the University of Toronto. I have been employed as a registered Ear, Nose and Throat specialist in the private sector since 1990. Dr Taylor – expert witness (ENT specialist) Dr Taylor – expert witness (ENT specialist)

49. Mr McLeod – defence attorney Dr Taylor, are you familiar with the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, Ms Tate? Mr McLeod – defense attorney

50. Yes, I am. Dr Taylor – expert witness (ENT specialist) Dr Taylor – expert witness (ENT specialist)