U of R appeals ruling in diving tragedy
The University of Regina is asking the province’s highest court to toss out the verdict and judgment in a case involving a young woman left a quadriplegic following a diving accident at a university pool.
Miranda Biletski was 16 and a member of the Regina Piranhas Summer Swim Club when, at a practice in June 2005, she hit bottom during a dive.
Biletski took the university to court and, at the conclusion of the trial in October, a jury found the university solely responsible and awarded Biletski $9,160,584.
The U of R attempted, in December, to have Regina Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Ted Zarzeczny overturn the jury’s decision, but that attempt ultimately failed.
Earlier this week, the university filed a notice of appeal with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, asking that the court throw out the verdict and judgment or, failing that, order a new trial. In addition to appealing the jury’s findings on liability and damages, the U of R intends to argue Zarzeczny erred in awarding a further $1,158,315 in tax gross-up.
The appeal names the Piranhas as a third party.
“The jury made findings that no reasonable jury, reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially, could have made,” the appeal, filed by lawyer Erin Kleisinger on behalf of the university, reads.
In the nine-page document, the U of R claims the jury made a number of “palpable and overriding” errors by failing to consider relevant evidence, considering “irrelevant matters” and “applying a wrong measure of damages.”
The university alleges the jury erred in its assessment of liability “in the face of the actions and negligence” of both Biletski and the Piranhas, as well as the law and evidence presented.
“The jury made a palpable and overriding error in finding full liability against the University in light of the evidence at trial,” the appeal states. “The jury erred in failing to consider relevant evidence which demonstrated that the University met the standard of care in the circumstances.”
The U of R adds the jury ignored the judge’s instructions that Biletski had a general duty to take proper precautions for her own safety, claiming the jury failed to consider “the uncontroverted evidence that Ms. Biletski did not execute her dive correctly.”
In relation to the Piranhas, the university intends to argue the jury ignored instructions that the club owed Biletski a duty of care and disregarded evidence suggesting the club failed in that respect.
In terms of damages, the university states the amount is “inordinately high” and fails to accurately assess future income loss or take into consideration the possibility of Biletski marrying.