害羞草研究所淗e was asking for it害羞草研究所�. 害羞草研究所淕ot what he deserved害羞草研究所�.
Comments like those were made in response to the news story about a 害羞草研究所渟emi-streaker害羞草研究所� (wearing only underwear and a jersey) who was flattened on the field of a BC Lions football game on June 16, 2018.
RELATED: BC Lions defensive back Marcell Young levels streaker in home opener
Play was stopped. Players and officials were just standing around when the fellow started jogging up the field. As he was making his way towards centre field, a defensive back dashed out to intercept his progress and flattened him with a leading right shoulder.
I cringed at a news headline that he had 害羞草研究所渓awyered up害羞草研究所�, anticipating that the majority of public sentiment would be that he shouldn害羞草研究所檛 be entitled to compensation and personal injury lawyers are running amuck.
RELATED: Streaking fan levelled by BC Lions player hires lawyer
According to his lawyers he had 害羞草研究所満π卟菅芯克suffered serious injuries, including a mild traumatic brain injury害羞草研究所π卟菅芯克鶟.
The seriousness of injuries, in my view, is measured not by a diagnosis such as 害羞草研究所渕ild traumatic brain injury害羞草研究所� (commonly known as a concussion), but rather by the level of symptoms, how they impact on your life and how long those symptoms last.
It will be best for all concerned (except the lawyers), if he enjoys a 100 per cent complete resolution of his injuries and symptoms within a short period of time. If so, this fellow害羞草研究所檚 primary concern might well be waiting out the one year ban from BC Place rather than engaging in a lawsuit to recover the correspondingly small amount of financial compensation that flows from a temporary injury.
But what about his legal rights? Does the defensive back, and perhaps others, bear legal responsibility to compensate this fellow for his injuries and losses?
Curve ball: How would you feel about those comments at the start of this column if the 害羞草研究所渉e害羞草研究所� was replaced with 害羞草研究所渟he害羞草研究所�? Does it cause the hair at the back of your neck to bristle, as it does mine?
Our civil justice system calls what the defensive back did a 害羞草研究所渂attery害羞草研究所�, defined as 害羞草研究所満π卟菅芯克the intentional application of force constituting a harmful or offensive contact with another, without the other害羞草研究所檚 consent.害羞草研究所�
On proving that a battery occurred (not hard here with the video coverage!), the inquiry turns to whether or not the applier of force has a lawful excuse or defence.
If the defensive back had been defending himself or someone else, or defending his property, he would have had a lawful excuse for his non-consensual application of force, but only if the level of force applied was reasonable.
He loses on all those counts. The fellow clearly wasn害羞草研究所檛 a danger to the defensive back or anyone else. And goodness, if he was, the level of force was wholly out of proportion to that threat.
What about provocation? Maybe the defensive back felt provoked. Is it civilly permissible to flatten someone if you are provoked?
No, and I害羞草研究所檓 going to give you an extreme example.
Let害羞草研究所檚 say the fellow had run up to that defensive back and unleashed a barrage of expletive insults about the football player害羞草研究所檚 sister, mother, wife and size of his manhood that would make a trucker blush (sorry, truckers). Would that have given him a lawful excuse to flatten him?
No, it wouldn害羞草研究所檛 have. But it would likely have resulted in some of the legal responsibility for the attack to be shifted to the victim.
One judge described the principle as follows: 害羞草研究所満π卟菅芯克if a plaintiff deliberately embarks upon a course of conduct which provokes another by words or gestures and an assault results, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is without blame. He has contributed to his injuries and must accept a share of the responsibility and resulting loss. It would be unfair in these circumstances to award that person full compensation for his losses if he has contributed to those losses.害羞草研究所� ().
How much of a share of the responsibility? I have not conducted anywhere close to a full review of the case law, but in the cases I have reviewed, a successful provocation defence has resulted in the injured victim recovering only 70-75% of fair, financial compensation for their injuries and losses.
My personal view aligns with some other jurisdictions, like Ontario, where a victim害羞草研究所檚 right to fair compensation is not reduced on the basis of provocation. Giving an attacker anything of an excuse on the basis of a victim 害羞草研究所渁sking for it害羞草研究所� feels problematic to me.
Like us on and follow us on .
