Go sue your dealer

ARon

Well-Known Member
#1
Ex-crystal meth addict successfully sues dealer
Updated Wed. Jan. 9 2008 10:27 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A Saskatchewan woman who overdosed on crystal methamphetamine has successfully won a precedent-setting civil lawsuit against the drug dealer who sold her the highly addictive drug.


Sandra Bergen, 23, and her family launched a lawsuit against Clinton Davey in 2005 after she suffered a heart attack in Biggar, Sask. that left her in a coma for 11 days.

She has since developed a heart condition that leaves her constantly fatigued and limits her chances of ever having children.


In her statement of claim, Bergen said Davey knew the drug was highly addictive and the sale of the drug was "for the purpose of making money but was also for the purpose of intentionally inflicting physical and mental suffering on Sandra."


Bergen, who says she has been drug-free since the 2004 incident, told Canada AM on Wednesday that a lack of action within the criminal justice system left her and her family frustrated.


"We found a different way to hold him responsible through the civil justice system," she said from Saskatoon.


An unknown drug supplier, referred to as John Doe, was also named in the suit. Davey refused to name his alleged supplier during court proceedings, prompting a judge to strike his claim of defence.


Without a claim of defence, Davey effectively admitted his liability in the case leaving Bergen's suit unopposed.

Bergen is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 for medical costs and legal fees. A hearing to determine how much she will be awarded in damages is scheduled for a later date.


Bergen said she doesn't expect to gain much financially from winning the suit, but hopes the case will inspire others to sue drug dealers who profit from addicts.


"It's bigger than me and it's bigger than this guy," she said. "I think it's a different way to hit drug dealers financially and that's where it will really hurt them."


Bergen, who now uses her story to educate others about the dangers of drug use, said she is often judged unfairly by people who "don't know the circumstances."


In Davy's statement of defence, he claims Bergen "did assume the risk to her person when she voluntarily ingested the illegal drugs."


Bergen maintains she has taken responsibility for her poor choices by getting sober.


"I think that's taking responsibility for my actions, I don't think I need to take responsibility for both of our actions. He should have to meet me half way and that's what this lawsuit was about," Bergen said.




A drug addict since the age of 18, Bergen's overdose occurred in 2004.


Feelings anxious about her testimony in an upcoming sexual assault trial, one in which she was the victim, Bergen smoked crystal meth with Davey at his grandmother's house. She began to experience symptoms of a heart attack shortly after.


Statistics Canada estimates crystal meth offences increased by eight per cent last year. The drug already has a firm grip on the Prairies, where pharmacies have limited the sale of cold remedies that contain its key ingredient -- pseudoephedrine.


Crystal meth is a relatively cheap drug to make, which has prompted hundreds of illegal, and potentially volatile, drug labs to pop up across the country.


Police estimate an investment of $150 can produce up to $10,000 of the highly-addictive drug.
Ha ha ha
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#2
10 grand from an investment less than 200 dollars? fuck i could make more money than hillary clinton did on that land deal back in the day
 

EDouble

Will suck off black men for a dime
#5
Number Of States In The U.s. This Is Possible In A Sense By Way Of Civil Liability In Hugh O'connor Act
 
#6
this is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? is it the drug dealer's fault she was an addict? no, he just gave her the drugs. common sense will tell you that anytime you buy any kind of illegal drug, you are taking a risk. if you buy then you accept the risk.

but no, it's not her fault, it's the drug dealer's fault. so if i go out to the bar and get drunk, then get in my car and run someone over, does that mean i can sue the bartender for serving me the alcohol? or if i get drunk at home and then drink till i get alcohol poisoning, can i sue the liquor store that sold it to me? if i eat McDonald's every day for 10 years then have a heart attack, can i sue them for selling me unhealthy food? this is complete crap, and i can't believe any judge would see things her way.
 

Prize Gotti

Boots N Cats
Staff member
#7
this is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? is it the drug dealer's fault she was an addict? no, he just gave her the drugs. common sense will tell you that anytime you buy any kind of illegal drug, you are taking a risk. if you buy then you accept the risk.

but no, it's not her fault, it's the drug dealer's fault. so if i go out to the bar and get drunk, then get in my car and run someone over, does that mean i can sue the bartender for serving me the alcohol? or if i get drunk at home and then drink till i get alcohol poisoning, can i sue the liquor store that sold it to me? if i eat McDonald's every day for 10 years then have a heart attack, can i sue them for selling me unhealthy food? this is complete crap, and i can't believe any judge would see things her way.
actually yes, it is actually illegal to be drunk in public, its the bar tender legal responsibility to refused to serve you and it is the proprietors responsibility to ensure you do not drive your car when you leave his premises.
 
#8
actually yes, it is actually illegal to be drunk in public, its the bar tender legal responsibility to refused to serve you and it is the proprietors responsibility to ensure you do not drive your car when you leave his premises.
but i can't turn around and sue the bartender for that, now can i? they didn't make me drink, and since even one beer is considered to be over the legal limit to drive, if he gives me one drink, i'd legally be able to sue them. if this was the case it would happen on a daily basis, and that does not appear to be the case. maybe the laws are different where you are, but in Canada i've never heard of a case like this, and if the judge had any sense at all the case would be dismissed immediately. people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everything you do on something or someone else.
 

Prize Gotti

Boots N Cats
Staff member
#9
but i can't turn around and sue the bartender for that, now can i? they didn't make me drink, and since even one beer is considered to be over the legal limit to drive, if he gives me one drink, i'd legally be able to sue them. if this was the case it would happen on a daily basis, and that does not appear to be the case. maybe the laws are different where you are, but in Canada i've never heard of a case like this, and if the judge had any sense at all the case would be dismissed immediately. people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everything you do on something or someone else.
1 drink is legal as far as im aware, but im talking about being drunk.
 
#10
1 drink is legal as far as im aware, but im talking about being drunk.
i know that's what you meant, but my point was that if you've had even one drink in most places (here you are literally right at the legal limit after one beer) you would be impaired (read: drunk) in the eyes of the law. therefore if i ran someone over after only having 1 or 2 beer, i would be charged with impaired driving causing death. but it wouldn't be my fault, the bartender gave me those drinks, so i'll sue him :rolleyes:

i feel the same way about the idiots who smoke for 40 years and then try to sue the tobacco companies. if you didn't know smoking was bad for you, then you're stupid, and if you did know, you accepted the risk and smoked anyway. if you have cancer now, that's too damn bad.
 

Prize Gotti

Boots N Cats
Staff member
#11
i know that's what you meant, but my point was that if you've had even one drink in most places (here you are literally right at the legal limit after one beer) you would be impaired (read: drunk) in the eyes of the law. therefore if i ran someone over after only having 1 or 2 beer, i would be charged with impaired driving causing death. but it wouldn't be my fault, the bartender gave me those drinks, so i'll sue him :rolleyes:

i feel the same way about the idiots who smoke for 40 years and then try to sue the tobacco companies. if you didn't know smoking was bad for you, then you're stupid, and if you did know, you accepted the risk and smoked anyway. if you have cancer now, that's too damn bad.
actually for many years smoking was considered & advertised as a healthy and safe habit. 40 years ago people weren't aware of risks it carried.
 
#12
actually for many years smoking was considered & advertised as a healthy and safe habit. 40 years ago people weren't aware of risks it carried.
actually (you've used that word too much, i'm using it now lol) if you look up the info the first major reports claiming that cigarettes had some health risks came out in the 60's (40 years ago :D) so most people who started smoking then knew there were at least some hazards, although they didn't know just how bad they were. but we are not talking about a product that is impossible to quit. hard, yes, but not impossible. if you read that cigarettes are bad for your health, and can cause cancer and heart disease, and you continue to smoke, you have made a conscious decision to ignore the risks and therefore should suffer the consequences for your actions. i am in that boat myself as a smoker, and i'm not planning on suing anyone if i get cancer because it will be no one's fault but my own. that's all i'm trying to get at here, people need to own up to their own mistakes and suffer the consequences.
 

Prize Gotti

Boots N Cats
Staff member
#13
actually (you've used that word too much, i'm using it now lol) if you look up the info the first major reports claiming that cigarettes had some health risks came out in the 60's (40 years ago :D) so most people who started smoking then knew there were at least some hazards, although they didn't know just how bad they were. but we are not talking about a product that is impossible to quit. hard, yes, but not impossible. if you read that cigarettes are bad for your health, and can cause cancer and heart disease, and you continue to smoke, you have made a conscious decision to ignore the risks and therefore should suffer the consequences for your actions. i am in that boat myself as a smoker, and i'm not planning on suing anyone if i get cancer because it will be no one's fault but my own. that's all i'm trying to get at here, people need to own up to their own mistakes and suffer the consequences.
i wouldnt sue either, i know what im doing but im at a point in my life where i do not care about the future. I will reach a point when I do care, but I consider myself too young to care and just want to enjoy what i have now and not worry about the future.

i know smoking is by no means healthy, but i dont really consider it unhealthy. Have you ever met old people that are 80+? that have perfect set of lungs and smoked cigars since before they fought in the war? I have met loads, my great grandfather has smoked since he was 14, he died at 103 of old age. medical research shows that every one of us has dormant cancer, and smoking is just one of many triggers.
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top