Suing the drug dealer for damages

In Biggar, Saskatchewan, in May 2004, Sandy Bergen, a drug addict bought crystal meth from a drug dealer called Clinton Davey. She overdosed and went into a coma.

Crystal Meth” is one of the street names used for methamphetamine. It is also know as “speed,” “meth” or “chalk.” In its smoked form, it can be referred to as “ice,” “crystal,” “crank,” and “glass.” The drug can be made easily in clandestine laboratories with relatively inexpensive over-the-counter ingredients.

When methamphetamine is injected or taken by mouth, the effects may last 6 to 8 hours. When it is smoked, the effects can last 10 to 12 hours. Methamphetamine enters the brain and triggers a cascading release of norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin. To a lesser extent Methamphetamine acts as a dopaminergic and adrenergic reuptake inhibitor and in high concentrations as a monamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI). Since it stimulates the mesolimbic reward pathway, causing euphoria and excitement, it is prone to abuse and addiction.

Users may become obsessed or perform repetitive tasks such as cleaning, hand-washing, or assembling and disassembling objects. Withdrawal is characterized by excessive sleeping, eating and depression-like symptoms, often accompanied by anxiety and drug-craving. If too much is ingested, the user can go into a coma and possibly not come out of it. Fortunately, Ms. Bergen came out of her coma.

Sandra Bergen says she was clean for eight months before Davey sought her out and sold her the crystal meth in May 2004, two days before she was scheduled to testify in a sexual assault case. She and her parents are seeking more than $50,000 (CAD), plus medical expenses on behalf of the Canadian health-care system, from Clinton Davey,

The likelihood of ever getting any money from this creep is pretty remote but if judgment is signed against him, he will never get a loan from a bank or any other financial institution until he pays off the $50,000 plus the medical expenses, including the pre and post judgment interests and legal fees. That means he won’t get a mortgage for a house or a loan for a car etc.

In the first week in January 2008, a judge struck Davey’s defense after Davey declined to reveal who gave him the drugs he allegedly gave to Bergen. This development means Bergen’s lawsuit is essentially unopposed and a hearing will be set to determine the damages to which Bergen is entitled.

Russ Brown, a law professor at the University of Alberta, said this victory was achieved by procedural means rather than the substance of the allegations. That decision by the judge has me worried.

Suppose Joe Blow gives an alcoholic friend a case of beer and his friend later drives his car and slams into a pedestrian and kills the pedestrian. And suppose the family of the pedestrian sues not only the driver but also Joe Blow for giving his friend the case of beer knowing that he was an alcoholic and would get into his car and drive home drunk. Would the judge have the right to strike Joe Blow’s defense which is that he didn't know that his friend had a car, thereby denying him his right to a trial if he refused to disclose where he bought the case of beer?

We will never know in this particular case in Saskatchewan because Davey doesn’t have the money to appeal that decision.