Overview

A 30-year-old mother and her unborn child were killed in an Owen Sound collision caused by an uninsured driver travelling at twice the speed limit. A jury awarded her family more than $500,000 in damages and interest. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the award in 2012.

Key Takeaways

  • Verdict: More than $500,000 in damages and interest, upheld on appeal
  • Accident type: Motor vehicle accident involving a speeding driver
  • Fatalities: A 30-year-old mother and her unborn child
  • Family circumstances: A wife, mother of two young daughters, nine months pregnant
  • Resolution method: Jury trial, appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal
  • Notable legal issues: The at-fault driver was uninsured; the size of the family’s award was challenged on appeal
  • Reported as: Vokes Estate v. Palmer, 2012 ONCA 510
  • Counsel: Adam Little, Jim Vigmond

The Case

A 30-year-old wife and mother of two young daughters was killed on a busy thoroughfare in Owen Sound. She was nine months pregnant, and her unborn child did not survive. The driver responsible was travelling at twice the speed limit.

Because he was uninsured, the claim had to be brought against both the driver and the family’s own insurance company.

The case went to trial before a jury, which awarded the family more than $500,000 in damages and interest. The insurer appealed, arguing the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the duty owed by Ms. Vokes when entering the highway, and that the award was too high. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the defendant’s excessive speed would have made the hazard difficult for her to detect.

Why It Matters

Ontario courts have historically awarded modest amounts to children who lose a parent, on the reasoning that such a loss cannot be measured in money. The practical effect is that families often receive far less than the loss warrants.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that a jury’s assessment of what a family has lost deserves deference, and that an award will not be reduced simply because it is higher than past cases. The decision continues to be cited on that point.