Woman wins lawsuit against her drug dealer

[moneoa]

SASKATOON -- A woman who overdosed on crystal methamphetamine in rural Saskatchewan has successfully sued the man who gave her the drug in what is believed to be the first legal victory of its kind in Canada.

"It was frustrating not having anything done through the criminal system," said 23-year-old Sandy Bergen, who has been drug- and alcohol-free since the 2004 incident in her hometown of Biggar, Sask., which is about 90 kilometres west of Saskatoon.

"Financially, I'm not really going to gain from it. But it's a way of holding him responsible."

Bergen and her parents launched the negligence suit against Clinton Davey in 2005, asking for more than $50,000 in medical costs and other damages.

Bergen suffered a heart attack during the overdose and spent 11 days in a coma. Now living in Saskatoon, she speaks at high schools about the dangers of crystal meth.

Last Friday, a Court of Queen's Bench judge in Saskatoon agreed to strike Davey's statement of defence in the case, which essentially finds him legally responsible.

A hearing will now be scheduled to determine what amount of money the court will award.

"To my knowledge, it's the first case that's gone anywhere against a drug dealer," said Bergen's lawyer, Stuart Busse.

Busse said he asked the court to strike Davey's statement of defence and find him in contempt of court for not answering questions about where he got his drugs.

The unknown drug supplier, John Doe, was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

In court documents, Davey said he could not remember the name of his drug supplier, although he could recall other details about the night of Bergen's overdose.

Busse said he believes Davey received threats, so he was likely fearing for his safety when he refused to answer questions about his drug supplier.

Davey did admit he gave Bergen crystal meth, but said the cash she gave him was for cigarettes, not the drug.

Davey's grandmother, Dalis Davey, was also named in the civil suit because the overdose happened in her home. But Busse said he may drop her as a defendant.

He said if the drug supplier is identified in the future, he can still be held liable.

The precedent-setting case could pave the way for similar lawsuits across Canada.

Busse said he has already talked to a woman from Nova Scotia who wants sue the drug dealer responsible for her son's overdose.

There have already been similar cases in the United States, where more than a dozen states have passed a Drug Dealer Liability Act.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=fc0a201b-3613-4a14-8dc7-c4525e44b312&k=45702

[Hath]

Man, thats just stupid. The dealer didn't make her take the drugs. She took them herself. Thats like suing Mcdonalds for having hot coffe. She brought the health problems on herself when she started doing meth. The results would have been the same regardless of how she obtained the drugs.

[autofrags]

Thats like suing Mcdonalds for having hot coffe.

Were you being scarcastic?, or referring to the other infamous frivolous lawsuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case).

[jodoels]

:devil2 thats what i think.she just covern up the fact that shes a daly tweek.

[Hath]

I was referring to the other infamously stupid lawsuit. I wish I was being sarcastic.

[autofrags]

I was referring to the other infamously stupid lawsuit. I wish I was being sarcastic.

Well ,actually, think about it.she may have been stupid enough to take the drugs, but the guy didn't really explain how dangerous the drugs were.For all she knew the dealer could've been giving her deadly poison, thinking its meth. that could've land him in jail for murder.its the same as shoving the poison down her throat.

[drtoker]

you'd think these dealers would wise up and put a warning lable on to avoid liability, thats what mc d's did. I wonder if that would hold up in court.

[autofrags]

you'd think these dealers would wise up and put a warning lable on to avoid liability, thats what mc d's did. I wonder if that would hold up in court.

Yes, if your selling illegal drugs and get sued, giving a warning will protect you from getting sued for your illegal drugs.

[drtoker]

no one is debating legallity, you would be charged and convicted for possession yes, but i'm talking just liability (civil, not criminal). The drugs are still illegal, but would the dealer be responsible for liability if proper warning was given and could be proved?

[autofrags]

no one is debating legallity, you would be charged and convicted for possession yes, but i'm talking just liability (civil, not criminal). The drugs are still illegal, but would the dealer be responsible for liability if proper warning was given and could be proved?

theres no liability if the person consented and was adequetly warned about the action they are taking.

Its just when you'r a low-life drug dealer, you don't even think much of consequences anyways, but the last thing you need to worry about is someone suing you for money you may not have and giving "warnings", instead of getting busted and doing hard time.

[mungopw]

that mcDonalds coffee is waaaay too f'n HOT! whatever it takes for em to make it reasonably hot instead of nuclear, all they did was put a warning label and keep on truckin with the HOT! coffee. btw ive stopped eating at McDonalds years ago because of the nuclear coffee, after eating the meal the coffee is still too hot to drink safely.LOL anyways just what the world needs is more litigation.

[drtoker]

and if it wasn't so hot, there would be a slew of people bitching that when they arrived home after a while, the coffee was luke warm. Fast food places normally try to serve up hot beverages warmer then needed so that it is still a desirable temp after driving X miles letting it cool.
Not that I agree, but thats the reasoning behind the nuclear coffee.

[HelenaP]

What's even funnier, is that anyone gives a sh*te.

[freakye]

This is bullshit! She's putting street narcotics into her body, and then going to sue when she OD's? Can't believe that any jury would side with her.

However, the McDonalds case... I don't think that particular case was frivoulous... The coffe was hot enough to give her 3rd degree burns and MELT her genitals. I guarantee you if I bought coffee and spilled it on myself, and it MELTED my genitals, and I had to have skin grafts and debreidment treatment, I'd want a little cash too.

Facts of the case <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.htm">here.</a>

[Excrement_Cranium]

Why all the fits?


You retards afraid your friend Joey the crank dealer is gonna get busted, too?


Drug dealers are shitballs, meth users and dealers are the lowest of them.

The sentencing should include any and all dealers and/or suppliers being buttfucked by some dude with a cock the same circumference as a can of Foster's.

[mountain_rage]

You can see who are the drug users on the forums. Anyway the guy gets what he deserves and hopefully this will help this girl turn her life around.

Sadly many people get hooked on drugs without either knowing what they are getting into to begin with, peer pressured, using laced drugs without knowing it and or being forced to use drugs. The last is more common then most people think. So its not always someones fault when they get hooked, and dealers are the most responsible for that so I am glad to see they can be sued, everyone should pursue this.

[freakye]

Whatever. You're an ass. This bitch is tying up the court because SHE chose to put that crap in her body, and she OD's. I doubt the dude came to her and forced the meth on her, and then forced her to smoke/shoot/snort so much that she OD'd. Too bad she didn't die.

[freakye]

So, mountain rage...

I suppose you're on board with sueing McDonalds because you got fat?

Same thing as assholes sueing cigarette manufacturers when they get sick from smoking.

Next you'll want to sue the car manufacturer when some ass hooks a hose up to his exhaust pipe and dies?

[mountain_rage]

Cigarettes have merit because they are carcinogenic, they knew they were carcinogenic and denied it for years. Its also habit forming which I believe they also knew and denied to the public. So yes I would say suing cigarette companies is just.

Suing the car manufacturer no, to take your own life in that way would require the individual to plan it out in their head. They are assumed to have the ability to make proper judgment. If they are not of sound mind that is not caused by the car and its not the manufacturers fault. There are also no disregard for the well being of the customers nor are they selling a habit forming product that will create a dependency and lower cognitive ability. If they however had a commercial advertising the benefits of inhaling exhaust fumes then yes by all means sue them.

Mc Donald's you also have no grounds to sue them as they give you the health information on all their food. People are able to see how much fat and calories are in the food, and people can see they are getting fat and stop eating it as the food is not habit forming.

[freakye]

Really? So you've never seen the TONS of anti-drug commercials? By the nature of the substance being illegal anyone with half a brain should come to the conclusion that that substance is harmful.

As far as your argument to the car, you don't think this woman planned in her head to go purchase the meth? And you don't think she planned to use it? The dealer did not sell that woman the drugs in order to make her OD. Just like the car manufactuer did not sell the car for the purpose of someone comitting suicide.

Ever heard of the stories of the stupid schlub that leaves the car running in the garage with the garage door closed and knocks off his whole family? So sue then??

McDonalds does not GIVE you the health information. They provide the information but it's incumbent upon the person who is eating the food to either ask for literature detailing the information. It is not printed on every wrapper, package, cup, etc.

So then, what about BEFORE McDonalds had nutritional information available? Then it's okay to sue them?

Bottom line, it comes down to personal responsibility. That's the problem with society today, everyone wants to blame their situation on someone else. Nobody wants to take the time to figure out if what they're doing is going to harm them or not. Why should someone else be responsible because you're too stupid to think for yourself?

[mountain_rage]

Really? So you've never seen the TONS of anti-drug commercials? By the nature of the substance being illegal anyone with half a brain should come to the conclusion that that substance is harmful.

As far as your argument to the car, you don't think this woman planned in her head to go purchase the meth? And you don't think she planned to use it? The dealer did not sell that woman the drugs in order to make her OD. Just like the car manufactuer did not sell the car for the purpose of someone comitting suicide.

Ever heard of the stories of the stupid schlub that leaves the car running in the garage with the garage door closed and knocks off his whole family? So sue then??

McDonalds does not GIVE you the health information. They provide the information but it's incumbent upon the person who is eating the food to either ask for literature detailing the information. It is not printed on every wrapper, package, cup, etc.

So then, what about BEFORE McDonalds had nutritional information available? Then it's okay to sue them?

Bottom line, it comes down to personal responsibility. That's the problem with society today, everyone wants to blame their situation on someone else. Nobody wants to take the time to figure out if what they're doing is going to harm them or not. Why should someone else be responsible because you're too stupid to think for yourself?

First off its not the dealers providing the information on the drugs, nor is he providing the individual with information about the side effects, active ingredients or even done a study to see if the drugs are safe. You are legally responsible for any product you sell if they are used under the intended use. If I sell you a bbq and tell you it will cook a steak in 10 seconds and to your dismay this means it blows up when lit you could sue me for damages. You have no way of knowing that I ran a the gas lines in a way that it will explode, you are putting your trust in me and that trust is formed from the understanding that you can't sell something that will cause harm under its intended use.

As for her ability to decide to use and buy the drugs, she planned to use drugs to get a high, which is what the dealer probably informed was the intended use or it was insinuated. She did not premeditate the overdose, and the extent of the usage may have been caused by a side effect of the drug, the dependence it causes. If you sold a legal drug that caused suicidal tendencies and did not inform the users of such a possibility you would get sued real fast.

If you leave your car running in the garage who is responsible, the carpenter that built the house, the car manufacturer the petroleum industry? The house was not built for the purpose of running a car inside of it, the car was not designed to be run indoors and the gas is not designed to be inhaled. None of those products were intended or marketed for those uses. In fact most if not all garage door and car user manuals do list warnings of such dangers. The difference between the guy filling his house with gas fumes and the dealer selling a drug that caused an overdose are as followed. The drugs were sold for ingestion and as such the dealer is responsible for the harm that the product causes while being used for its intended purpose. If the girl went over the suggested dosage knowingly and was told a specific amount to take then the dealer would of had a defense, but I highly doubt he gave her one.

Its like this if I sold you ethanol and told you it will get you real messed up (meaning you will get high or drunk, its insinuated) then you could sue me when you get harmed ingesting it. I decided to sell you a product with an intended use that will harm you and did so knowingly or without properly testing the product so I am now responsible for the harm I caused.

[freakye]

The whole point isn't whether or not you CAN get sued, but SHOULD you!!

She is breaking the LAW by buying the drugs. He is breaking the law by SELLING her the drugs.

I'm asking you why is it his responsibility because she's stupid?

If I'm fucking stupid enough to buy the ethanol from you, and breathe it in over and over and I die, I'm a fucking IDIOT and deserve what I get.

Like I said. Personal Responsibility. Take some. Or die. Pure Darwinism.

Stop coddling stupid people. Bottom line, you know what you're doing is harmful, yet you continue. Suffer the consequences on your own.

[mountain_rage]

The whole point isn't whether or not you CAN get sued, but SHOULD you!!

She is breaking the LAW by buying the drugs. He is breaking the law by SELLING her the drugs.

I'm asking you why is it his responsibility because she's stupid?

If I'm fucking stupid enough to buy the ethanol from you, and breathe it in over and over and I die, I'm a fucking IDIOT and deserve what I get.

Like I said. Personal Responsibility. Take some. Or die. Pure Darwinism.

Stop coddling stupid people. Bottom line, you know what you're doing is harmful, yet you continue. Suffer the consequences on your own.

The onus of safety is on the seller not the buyer, or whoever produces the product. The grocery store manager would not be responsible for a product sold in his store that caused harm except if he was aware it caused harm under the intended use. This is how our society works, if you sell me something its your responsibility to make sure its safe not mine. Reason for that is that we can't all be experts on everything so we need to put our trust in someone eventually. You buy a burger you expect it not to be contaminated, you get drugs you expect it to be safe under the intended dosage, you buy a car you expect it to hold together and be safe for regular driving. I'm not trying to get across that she was bright I am informing you why the onus is on the seller and not the buyer. If you see things differently then great, society works the way I am explaining it.

[freakye]

No, it doesn't. What you're talking about is when you're purchasing from a reputable company. That's why there are LAWS to govern product safety, etc.

If you are dealing on the black market, you have ABSOLUETLY NO expectation of safety.

I don't see how you can't see this.

If you're at a gas station, and some dude pulls up and sells you a "laptop" in a box out of his trunk, how are you going to be mad when you get home and you have a box full of bricks? What are you gonna do? Sue the guy because you attempted to buy obviously stolen laptops and got ripped of yourself?

If I go to Best Buy and buy a laptop in a box I have a reasonable expectation that a working laptop of the same make and model as advertised will be in the box. If I buy one out of the trunk of a guys car, or from behind a dumpster, etc., then what the fuck do I have to cry about if it's broken or not even real????

Do you not see the difference??

If you don't understand that, than you are not living in the real world, but a fantasy world.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Like I said. Personal Responsibility.


Then expect to get your ass sued when something you sell causes death or injury.


And since we ain't in the forest, fuck Darwin.

*edit*


Even Halloween costumes have stupid warnings: "Cape does not allow child to fly." "Caution: after heating food will be hot."

Drug dealers offer no warning, they want their customers to use more so they can sell more.

"Here, baby, smoke up."

[mountain_rage]

No, it doesn't. What you're talking about is when you're purchasing from a reputable company. That's why there are LAWS to govern product safety, etc.

If you are dealing on the black market, you have ABSOLUETLY NO expectation of safety.

I don't see how you can't see this.

If you're at a gas station, and some dude pulls up and sells you a "laptop" in a box out of his trunk, how are you going to be mad when you get home and you have a box full of bricks? What are you gonna do? Sue the guy because you attempted to buy obviously stolen laptops and got ripped of yourself?

If I go to Best Buy and buy a laptop in a box I have a reasonable expectation that a working laptop of the same make and model as advertised will be in the box. If I buy one out of the trunk of a guys car, or from behind a dumpster, etc., then what the fuck do I have to cry about if it's broken or not even real????

Do you not see the difference??

If you don't understand that, than you are not living in the real world, but a fantasy world.

Yes all those things you can get sued for because you didn't fulfill the verbal arrangement. That is unless the individual told you it was broken. There was actually a case where people were going around in vans selling stereo equipment for really cheap. Turns out it was legitimate and simply the equipment sucked. The people couldn't sue because they upheld their agreement they sold them a stereo system that worked and was what they promised it would be. They did however get fined for selling merchandise without a license.