Plaintiff should have used marijuana?
People get in car accidents and they get badly hurt. So insurance defense lawyers end up making some crazy arguments. But in Glesby v. MacMillian, a Maryland car accident case, the defendant reached a new height of insanity: arguing that the plaintiff should have used marijuana to mitigate her damages.
(Okay, okay… this is not an actual Maryland case. And, right, it is not even in the U.S. It is Great Britain in British Columbia. (That’s Canada? Oh.) Anyway, forgive me. The story was just a lot more fun that way. Sorry.)
How This “You Should Have Taken Marijuana” Argument Came to Be
Glesby involved a 28 year-0ld woman who got rear-ended. Pretty common set of facts. She racks up about $17,000 in bills. (That’s Canadian money. My sources tell me they are too proud to use our money so instead they using money with the Queen of England on it. Perplexing.)
Okay, enough of the stand-up act which I’m not great at anyway. The plaintiff files suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which sounds fancy, but it is really just their trial court. It is a bench trial. Plaintiff claims continued discomfort in her neck, shoulder, and upper back after the crash. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s injuries would not have been as bad if she had taken medical marijuana.