ter Neuzen V Korn

bkmlocksbkmlocks
in Dav.NonPec

Hey @graham, was wondering if you can you please clarify the meaning of the Battlecard for Ruling # 2 of this case (appeal).

Based of whats is the battle card, if I understood correctly, court of appeal decided that NOTHING is to be paid to the plaintiff (hence why Cap is moot ?).

From the reading however, the ruling of the court of appeal is not explicitly mentioned so I am not sure I get the Battlecard.

Thank you for clarifying!

Comments

  • grahamgraham

    Hey @bkmlocks,

    I looked this case up online (as well as other legal cases in the syllabus) and that's where I got this extra information. I found that doing a google search was sometimes more helpful in understanding a case than reading the CAS source text. It's acceptable to provide information not specifically in the syllabus as long as it's correct. In this case, I thought the explanation of the case made more sense with this little bit of extra information.

    I also tidied up the BattleCards for this case.

  • bkmlocksbkmlocks

    Thank you for the clarification @graham :)

  • jjj820jjj820

    Hi Graham,

    I am sorry I don't get ruling2 as well.
    was the award reduced from 460K to 100K (in 1978$) ? (I believe so)
    the first point "since no general damages were rewarded , the cap was not relevant."
    I thought 460K was for general damages?

    Thank you.

  • grahamgraham

    The way I understood ruling 2 is that the award was reduced to $0 (rather than $100K.) Then there are no general damages and the Trilogy ruling is not relevant. It seems the insurer got more than what they asked for since all they wanted was a reduction to 100K.

  • jjj820jjj820

    Thank you Graham !

  • ckevin2202ckevin2202

    Hi Graham, do you mind explain to me the SC ruling that cap status: Judicial policy directive became rule of law? I dont understand the difference between the judicial policy directive compares to rule of law. Thanks!

  • grahamgraham

    I'm not a lawyer but the way I interpreted that is as follows:

    • a judicial policy directive is something that has been deemed good policy and should generally be followed in making a decision, but it doesn't have to be followed
    • rule of law is something that must be followed

    That might not be how a lawyer would explain it but I think that's all you would need to understand for the exam.

  • Tony88passTony88pass
    edited October 2021

    Hi Graham,

    Is the term "general damage" equivalent to "non-pecuniary damage" in this case? Since the result is that the supreme court reinforced the original trilogy, which implies that the award would be subjected to the cap even in the first trial, right?

  • grahamgraham

    Yes, general damages and non-pecuniary damages (also called non-monetary damages) mean the same thing. Examples of non-pecuniary damages are: pain and suffering, loss of companionship, physical disfigurement, mental anguish, and a general loss of enjoyment in life that results from diminished wellness.

    And yes, the Supreme Court ruling in the ter-Neuzen vs Korn case means the Trilogy cap would have applied in the first trial.

  • NycxBattleNycxBattle

    Hi,

    I want to summarize this case see if my interpretation is correct:

    1) Initial ruling is non - pec damage was 460,000
    2) It was appealed and reduced to $0, it was the Korn's fault
    3) Tried to appealed to SCC but appeal for dismissed.

    Is that correct?

  • Staff-T1Staff-T1
    For number 2) it's not saying that it's zero, just that the indemnity should be capped at the original trilogy limit which is 100k
Sign In or Register to comment.