Woman Sues Drug Dealer For Negligence

[ZenGum]

Full story here.

Edited highlights:

A Canadian woman has successfully sued the dealer who sold her an illegal street drug that put her in a coma.

Sandra Bergen, 23, suffered a heart attack and spent 11 days in a coma after taking crystal methamphetamine.

"I sued him for negligence... for selling me drugs and getting me hooked when I was vulnerable," Ms Bergen told the French news agency AFP.

In her statement of claim, she said he "knew the drug was highly addictive" and that his dealing was not only "for the purpose of making money but was also for the purpose of intentionally inflicting physical and mental suffering" on her.

In his defence, Mr Davey had argued that Ms Bergen "voluntarily consumed illegal drugs, thus contributing to her own condition."

"She assumed the risks," he said.

Mr Davey refused to name his source of the drug, prompting the Saskatchewan judge to reject his defence - that Ms Bergen had taken the drug voluntarily.

Is it just me or is this &%$#ing crazy?
"Okay, sir/ma'am, I'm glad we've agreed on the price and the quantity, but before I can sell you this nice A-grade crack I need you to sign this form indicating that I have advised you that it is illegal, addictive, potentially lethal will &%$# you up. Here, borrow my pen..."

[aimeecc]

Too funny!
So, if I get in a car accident due to my own stupidity, can I sue the gas station for supplying me the gas knowing how dangerous cars can be? What about the car dealer? And the car manufacturer? Yes you say? COOL!

[glatt]

That is pretty remarkable. I don't know anything about Canadian law, but in the US, a civil suit has a lower standard of evidence than a criminal suit, so maybe that's why they went with a civil suit here.

I also find it interesting that since the drug dealer wouldn't give up his source, he wasn't allowed to use a certain argument in his defense. Wonder what the Judge's reasoning for that was.

[Clodfobble]

Maybe the judge could claim that the refusal to give up the source indicates a knowledge of guilt by the defendant. Obviously the source's guilt is dealing the illegal drug in the first place, not willfully intending to hurt the user, but the judge is playing dumb for the purposes of putting at least one of them in jail.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by glatt

I also find it interesting that since the drug dealer wouldn't give up his source, he wasn't allowed to use a certain argument in his defense. Wonder what the Judge's reasoning for that was.

I noticed that too. It screamed total non sequitur to me. Maybe just poor reporting? Or a bad lawyer?

[glatt]

This was interesting. There has to be a story there.

Ms Bergen and Mr Davey were friends from childhood.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Maybe the judge could claim that the refusal to give up the source indicates a knowledge of guilt by the defendant. Obviously the source's guilt is dealing the illegal drug in the first place, not willfully intending to hurt the user, but the judge is playing dumb for the purposes of putting at least one of them in jail.

It's a civil case, she is seeking cash damages ($50,000). No one can go to jail from this case.
Still, I wonder if the woman will be done for possession...

[classicman]

they're gonna split the take, get really effed up, OD and die together so they can be termed lifelong friends for all eternity....

[classicman]

or at least I hope

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

It's a civil case, she is seeking cash damages ($50,000). No one can go to jail from this case.

Not directly, but what if, in order to deal with the civil case charge, the dealer gave up evidence on the source worthy of criminal prosecution? The judge can always dream. And what are Canadian laws on seizure? If the dealer is ordered to pay $50,000 and can't, can they seize all his assets and essentially put him out of business?

Or maybe a criminal case is coming soon, and they're just hoping a guilty civil verdict will be useful in winning the criminal case?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Reverse OJ?

[BigV]

I'm reminded of the Fed case against Al Capone. He was found guilty of tax evasion, essentially that he had failed to report the income. Naturally this is a crime that the Feds would want to prosecute. But there wasn't any prosecution of the crimes that generated the income.

I saw them going after what they felt could win--tax evasion, ignoring what seems to be the obvious and more egregious crime of bootlegging and racketeering. I see this woman doing the same thing, seeking a favorable judgment for negligence, ignoring the obvious and more egregious crime(s) of illegal drug use/trafficking.

[deadbeater]

Hey, if you want to start legalizing marijuana and other drugs, the dealers being successfully sued for slipping in some bad weed is a start.

[Aliantha]

I don't think they ignored the more serious crimes with regard to Al Capone. The fact is, they couldn't get any 'supportable' evidence even though they knew what was going on.

People kept dying.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Hey, if you want to start legalizing marijuana and other drugs, the dealers being successfully sued for slipping in some bad weed is a start.

Yeah. Make the lawyers see dollar signs, and that shit'll be legal faster than you can say "I'm a tweaker..."