Canada Meth Smoker Sues Dealer after Overdosing

nuke

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
4,191
A Saskatchewan woman has won a precedent-setting lawsuit against the drug dealer who sold her a near-fatal overdose of crystal meth.

Sandy Bergen, 23, accused her former kindergarten classmate, Clinton Davey, of selling her the drug in the town of Biggar, Sask., in 2004. In her statement of claim, she said Mr. Davey knew the drug was highly addictive and harmful, and sold it not only for profit, but to intentionally inflict physical and mental suffering.

She also named as a defendant the unknown John Doe who supplied Mr. Davey with his drugs. When Mr. Davey refused to reveal the name of his supplier during the pretrial discovery process - and faced the threat of a contempt-of-court charge - he consented to have his statement of defence struck, effectively admitting his liability and handing victory to Ms. Bergen.

Another hearing will be held to determine how much she will be awarded in damages.

"It's a precedent-setting lawsuit and I'm really happy," Ms. Bergen said. "Now drug dealers can be held liable in that they could lose all their assets and all the money they make from selling drugs."

Her lawyer, Stuart Busse, said the result is satisfying, but added it's unfortunate the case wasn't decided on its merits with written reasons handed down by a judge.

The incident occurred in May, 2004, when Ms. Bergen was 19. She met up with Mr. Davey and went with him to his grandmother's house to smoke drugs.

"We were smoking [the crystal meth] and all of a sudden it felt like I was stabbed in the brain with a pencil - a really bad, sharp pain in the head, and I was sweating profusely, it was hard to open and close my hand. I started vomiting and coughing up blood," she said.

When the case returns to court, she will be seeking damages in excess of $50,000, according to her statement of claim.

Woman wins lawsuit against drug dealer

Globe and Mail
January 9, 2007

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...l09/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview


tweaker logic at work i guess
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OMG! Did he make her take/buy the stuff!? I wonder what his statement of defense was that it was invalidated by not revealing his dealer?

What a bitch.
 
dorothyperkins said:
OMG! Did he make her take/buy the stuff!? I wonder what his statement of defense was that it was invalidated by not revealing his dealer?

What a bitch.

No , he pinned her down on the floor and forced to smoke it at gunpoint 8)

Seriously though, what is this world coming to, this is dangerous precedent setting case...
 
That was my point, it was her decision to smoke it, she is responsible for the consequences. Its like jumping out of a building and suing the owner of the building for putting it there for you to jump out of! And then suing the construction company for building it, as i assume she wanted to do with his dealer. :X
 
Crazeee said:
this is dangerous precedent setting case...


Agreed. I really hope she looses, and not just because it's a shitty thing to do on her part either. If she wins then it sets the precedent and people might be able to do the same in other jurisdictions. :\
 
left of the point totally... but i mean, at the grandmother's house?! wow thats a bit rude. Anyway, how much meth do u think u have to smoke in wat time frame to actually OD?
 
^Id also like to know that also, mustve been power smokin that shit
 
overdosing on potent meth wouldn't be difficult. Easily within the range of human ability. Not like cannabis.

Think about it. 5mg is a therapeutic dose. recreational doses are probably between 30 and 90mgs, no tolerance, and going up as tolerance increases.

You could take enough for an overdose in a single hit, actually, I suppose.
 
The incident occurred in May, 2004, when Ms. Bergen was 19. She met up with Mr. Davey and went with him to his grandmother's house to smoke drugs.


I can see it now, "God gramma I just wanna bring my friend over so we can smoke some drugs! Gosh, why do you always have to be so mean?"
 
After some reading, apparently Civil Law in Canada allows anyone to be sued for anything irrelevant if the act was legal or not, so from the legal stand point the case makes sense, from common sense view it doesn't.
 
I would imagine that if this became common practice, the cases would start to be settled "out of court," i.e. plaintiffs would turn up in shallow graves.
 
That's a little melodramatic. The vast majority of drug dealers wouldn't commit murder to avoid a civil suit.
 
people are routinely murdered over less than $50,000, plus she is threatening to expose them to other prosecution by revealing their name. I don't think it is much of a stretch at all.
 
routinely? Considering the murder rates in this country- and the lower ones in Canada, that's quite a stretch.
 
From Wiki:

murder and attempted murder...658 and 772 incidents respectively... Homicide has only increased by 2% from 1995, but jumped 13% in 2004 and 4% more in 2005.[4]. Much of the recent increase has been attributed to drug related turf disputes

I wasn't talking about Canada specifically, but given the above information I think it is certainly plausible. How do you think drug dealers would react to a threat like this, by giving out free candy?
 
In an entire country, over 365 days. That's really low, especially including attempted murder.

Not by murder. This isn't the movies. The majority of these people are poor, selling rather small amounts. The guy's not gonna have the 50 grand, so what's the big deal?
 
Ham-milton said:
Not by murder. This isn't the movies. The majority of these people are poor, selling rather small amounts. The guy's not gonna have the 50 grand, so what's the big deal?

Yet they are still apparently willing to kill people over it, as the quote shows. The big deal is that he is going to have to prove he doesn't have it, which means revealing his financial assets, as well as the co-defendant angle where he has to name his higher ups. This presents a significant threat to what is, in effect, organized crime (ie high level drug distribution). I really don't think that they would take this laying down, it's a serious threat to their livelihood and freedom. If low level dealers are willing to kill, what do you think the higher level dealers are going to do?
 
Top