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.

[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.

[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 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...

[tw]

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.

The judge is not playing dumb. For example, if the user is 60% guilty, then the dealer can only be 40% guilty? Of course not. Each is responsible for his own actions.

Sure, the user is 60% or 100% responsible for her actions. That says nothing about the dealer's responsibilities. Dealer also is responsible - separately - for his own actions. A dealer who can cast blame on the guilty party (his provider), could have claimed he did not know the material was manufactured defectively. But the dealer has taken the position of 'prime contractor'. The 'prime contractor' takes responsibility for the actions of his subcontractors.

By not naming his provider, the dealer is a 'prime contractor' and therefore fully responsible for integrity (safety) of the product. This dealer sold dangerous product and is 100% guilty for selling a defective product.

That 100% guilt upon the dealer is completely independent of another irresponsible action by the user.

In a separate action, 6 ruffians kill a man. Each actively participated in the murder. Is each only 17% guilty of murder? Of course not. Each man is 100% responsible for his actions in a murder - regardless of how many others also participated. Some instead want to break blame up into pieces. Does not matter how many participated. Each guilty party is 100% responsible for what his own actions do - regardless of what others also do.

[ZenGum]

As I read it, the product was not defective. It was just by its nature a dangerous drug.
In some situations - such as car crashes, personal injury and unfair dismissals - I have seen judgments that apportion responsibility, but as you say, I've never seen it in a criminal trial.

[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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, and this has resulted in another bizarre legislative item in the War on Drugs - The Marijuana tax stamp.

In order to make the case that illegal marijuana growers were given the opportunity to pay taxes on their illegal crop, the government in 1937 passed a tax act that taxed marijuana (or marihuana), even though it was illegal. In 1969, the court ruled that this violated the 5th amendment by forcing a person to admit to a criminal act (thanks to Timothy Leary).

This has not stopped states from getting into the game. Many states have recently passed similar laws, some of which have withstood constitutional challenges. I'm just guessing but possibly the thinking was that since states did not enforce federal drug laws there would be no direct self incrimination (I am not a lawyer and this is just speculation). What would be interesting is if the marijuana was for medical use and the state did call in the Feds, would they be violating HIPAA?

Update: I was close. The Oklahoma Tax Law that survived the challenge in theory granted immunity from state prosecution. This, coupled with the theory that the person buying the stamp did not have to prove that he was the possessor of the substance gave the court enough room to conclude that the law did not violate the 5th. Of course in the real world, the idea that someone could walk in, buy one of these stamps, and walk out without being subjected to any official scrutiny is ridiculous.