Photo by Whitehorse Star
LAWSUIT LAUNCHED – The spouse of a deceased woman is suing the Yukon Government, an EMS, the City and a local restaurant alleging they are responsible in the death of the woman last year.
Photo by Whitehorse Star
LAWSUIT LAUNCHED – The spouse of a deceased woman is suing the Yukon Government, an EMS, the City and a local restaurant alleging they are responsible in the death of the woman last year.
The spouse of a woman who died in Whitehorse after falling on her head outside a restaurant is suing the city, the Yukon government, an emergency responder and the operators of the 506 All Day Grill.
The spouse of a woman who died in Whitehorse after falling on her head outside a restaurant is suing the city, the Yukon government, an emergency responder and the operators of the 506 All Day Grill.
The spouse, referred to as “X” in the lawsuit, is seeking damages alleging various responsibilities on the defendants according to a statement of claim filed Feb. 25 in Yukon Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court judge granted a request by the plaintiff’s lawyer to have her identity be kept sealed.
The statement of claim only mentions the fact the plaintiff is a retired Whitehorse resident.
While the name of the woman who died is not under a publication ban, the Star has chosen not to publish it over concerns it could reveal the identity of the plaintiff.
According to the statement of claim, the woman was at the 506 All Day Grill on Main Street on March 19, 2015.
As she was leaving, she fell on the “exterior deck and stair system,” striking her head.
She suffered a subdural hematoma and was medevaced to Vancouver.
She died there nine days later.
The statement of claim alleges the stairs were unsafe and that there were a number of building code deficiencies.
The operators of the 506 All Day Grill allowed it to remain unsafe, the statement says.
The plaintiff is also taking aim at the city, arguing that because it is in charge of permitting and inspecting restaurants, it was negligent in not ensuring compliance with the National Building Code.
“At the time of the fall, the plaintiff and (the woman) had been cohabiting for 10 years and were in an interdependent relationship where they shared expenses, vacationed together, cared for one another during illness and were named as each other’s beneficiaries under their wills and power of attorney documents,” the statement of claim reads.
The spouse is also suing the EMS staffer who responded to the woman’s fall that day, and his employer, the Yukon government.
The identity of the EMS representative is not known, and is referred to as “John Doe” throughout the document.
“John Doe had (the woman) sign a Refusal to Accept Treatment form, after which (the woman) went home,” the statement of claim reads.
Hours later, the woman was found lying on the floor of her home.
She was brought to Whitehorse General Hospital and diagnosed with a subdural hematoma before being medevaced.
The plaintiff alleges the EMS responder failed to diagnose the head injury and bring her to the hospital.
He also shouldn’t have allowed her to decline treatment because he “ought to know” that the woman had likely suffered a head injury, it is alleged.
The Yukon government is also named as a defendant, with the spouse claiming it failed to properly train the EMS responder.
Calls from the Star to the restaurant seeking comment were not returned.
“The city is in the process of reviewing the document, and since the matter is now before the courts, we cannot comment in order to respect the legal process,” city spokesperson Jessica Apolloni told the Star.
The Department of Justice could not comment before deadline this afternoon.
In 2004, Justice Ron Veale ruled in favour of using initials not identifying names for a civil lawsuit involving an alleged sexual assault.
While the court file wasn’t sealed, anything that could identify the plaintiff was prohibited from publication on top of using initials not referring to the plaintiff’s name.
None of the publicly available documents in the current lawsuit explain the reasons why the woman’s identity is kept under seal.
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (21)
Up 6 Down 8
annon on Mar 10, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Also, if people were nosy enough to know who was suing the Statement of Claim documentation it is public information and available at the courthouse. The paper was asked for privacy and as a courtesy, they abided by the request. I don't see why everyone wants to do a manhunt for the Plaintiff. Relax.
Up 6 Down 0
annon on Mar 10, 2016 at 1:15 pm
For those who have made comments about who is being sued: I work in the law industry and we are required to list all party(ies) involved in the lawsuit no matter how much liability is against said party(ies). The insurance companies and/or individuals would share liabiltiy and share in the lawsuit payout, if shared liability was confirmed. You list every person possible and eliminate after-the-fact to avoid the loss of limitation against those parties. It is easier to list all parties at the beginning than trying to quickly add parties when the limitation date is up. It doesn't make it sound right, but it is merely a formality that is required by the platiniff lawyer.
Just thought I would clarify.
Up 8 Down 17
Fredia on Mar 8, 2016 at 6:52 pm
@ June Jackon --I have lived here a long time and always gear up with yak tracks so I don't fall and break my neck. The sidewalks here in town are just atrocious! I live in Riverdale and do a fair amount of walking and the main thoroughfares here are Lewes Blvd and Alsek Road. In a lot of places it is just a glare of ice. I see people fall just about every week. I talked to by-law and in order for them to give notice to negligent home owners and multi residential I have to give them the house numbers of every single one who doesn't keep their sidewalks in some sort of reasonable condition. I asked why they just can't drive the loop but no, that is not their job. I have to lodge a complaint! I offered to do their job for them but they declined. What I don't understand is why more people aren't suing.
Up 77 Down 1
Max Mack on Mar 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Why is the plaintiff's name under a publication ban? Does this case involve sexual assault? Nope. A minor? Nope. Mentally disabled person? Nope. So the grounds for a publication ban are . . . what exactly? Is the court advocating for the accuser, while leaving the accused to twist in the wind?
The restaurant, the City and YTG have all been freely identified. It seems patently unfair for the plaintiff to have court-ordered protection.
Up 6 Down 55
Bobby Bitman on Mar 7, 2016 at 9:39 am
I doubt very much the top concern on the mind of someone who's life partner just died is 'a fat pay out'. We don't even have jack-pot pay outs in Canada.
Sometimes the best way of getting the attention of the comfortable and lazy bureaucracy is to sue them. Part of the judgement could likely be an order to change procedures so this does not happen to anyone else.
For people so curious about who is suing, go ahead down to the law courts and find out. The Star found it more appropriate to protect the identity of the widowed spouse, while still sharing with the public the issue of head injuries and how the system currently works.
Up 28 Down 25
YukonR on Mar 6, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Need more facts. Who called EMS? It must have been serious for them to be called in. Maybe it was the fall at home that caused the hematoma - how serious was that fall? Were there witnesses to either or both falls? An unfortunate incident for sure.
Up 58 Down 3
woodcutter on Mar 6, 2016 at 7:26 pm
Based on my knowledge and experience working as an EMR, we were responsible to ensure the packaging, transporting and monitoring of the person in distress, not the diagnosis.
We were taught injuries associated with the mechanism of the event that transpired and then to conduct the necessary packaging, utilizing the equipment we had in hand. We would put on a neck brace all the time, to make sure the head doesn't move, in case of fractured spine. We would monitor as set intervals the vital signs and this information was then produced to the medical facility.
I've never seen anyone refuse service, however we had forms available in case. We were not qualified to diagnose, even if there was a bone sticking out through the leg. We were not even allowed to declare dead on the scene, even though it was obvious. Those decisions were left to a person of competent knowledge, i.e. the doctor. We also could not force anyone to come with us.
It's to bad the lady did not take the advice of the EMR
Up 67 Down 100
noname on Mar 6, 2016 at 9:28 am
The woman fell and suffered a traumatic head injury. She was obviously not thinking clearly, so she signed. Clearly it was the responsibility of the EMS to ensure that she was seen at the hospital, not to have her "sign a Refusal to Accept Treatment form."
Up 68 Down 0
Armchair Quarterback on Mar 6, 2016 at 8:22 am
@Anonymous, to my understanding the only way you can 'make' someone do something is to put them in custody, as in arrest them. I seriously doubt that is appropriate in cases of something such as this fall. Medics can strongly recommend an individual get treatment but at the end of the day in most circumstances it is an individual's right to refuse any treatment. How would you feel if you were 'made' to go somewhere for treatment you didn't want after falling and thinking you were ok? You would probably sue if someone made you do something against your will!
Up 54 Down 6
June Jackson on Mar 5, 2016 at 10:29 pm
Icy steps, roads, sidewalks are a fact of life in the winter here. Was she properly dressed? I am 75 and believe me, when I go out I have my boots and cap on with appropriate clothing. I am terribly sorry she passed on.. my condolences. But with a broad range suit like this, it does look like he is hoping for a fat out of court settlement.. a money grab.
Up 46 Down 5
healthcare worker on Mar 5, 2016 at 8:40 pm
Would it kill you guys to say "paramedic?" Every employee of Whitehorse ambulance Station is a primary, advanced, or critical care paramedic, or a registered nurse.
Up 33 Down 0
Josey Whales on Mar 5, 2016 at 5:59 pm
This is so unfortunate for everyone involved.
Up 44 Down 5
67 scotty10 on Mar 5, 2016 at 5:02 pm
Names should be known if money is being asked for.
Up 63 Down 3
dave on Mar 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm
The ugly face of our compensation culture. And why the EMS guy/girl should be in any way liable here is farcical. They were simply doing their job. Maybe they should counter-sue the victim's partner for a transparent case of inappropriate legal action against someone trying to help. Sorry someone died, but lashing out through the courts at anyone involved is pathetic.
Up 91 Down 3
just Say'in on Mar 5, 2016 at 1:09 am
I don't understand why all the secrecy. It was not a minor or sexual assault. Seems like maybe someone is trying to get a pay day and not have anyone know who the winner is. If you don't want to go to the hospital nobody can force you. End of story. The 506 did rebuild all of their decks this summer however ramps are inherently dangerous in the winter and you can't have cleats because they are a trip hazard. Should go the stairs or get assistance from your loving partner to make sure you are safe.
Up 111 Down 1
Amazed on Mar 5, 2016 at 12:16 am
So a slip and fall and refuse to accept treatment and it's everybody else's fault ? So get sued for forcing them into treatment or get sued for allowing ( with signature ) them to decline. Yeah that ems responder probably feels really motivated to go out of their way to help now.
Up 89 Down 1
jc on Mar 4, 2016 at 9:58 pm
The woman signed the refusal form obviously because she didn't want treatment. The EMS didn't force her to. The EMS was only covering his/her butt. But it seems the spouse is trying to cover all bases.
Up 21 Down 53
anonymous on Mar 4, 2016 at 6:10 pm
Seriously? You should have made her go to the hospital. Geez.
Up 90 Down 3
Thomas Brewer on Mar 4, 2016 at 4:49 pm
Protecting people's identity in cases of sexual assaults, young offenders, and the like is justified.
You chose to sue someone? You waive your right to anonymity.
Up 124 Down 9
mary laker on Mar 4, 2016 at 4:38 pm
The nature of a head injury is that you HIT YOUR HEAD and are probably not thinking straight. If she said, "No freaking way! I am not going with you!" and her spouse backed her up in that and drove her home, I could understand the EMS having her sign a refusal to accept treatment. I just hope he made it clear how dangerous head injuries can be.
What a nightmare for all involved: the restaurant owner, the landlord, the EMR and the spouse. Totally sad. Accidents happen, and I trust the court will assess whether anyone is to blame.
Up 22 Down 138
Anon on Mar 4, 2016 at 3:33 pm
There's more people to sue here for sure, just scratchin' the surface.