In Karsten v. Young (1999), 46 M.V.R. (3d) 278 (B.C.S.C.), similar reasoning led this court to conclude that there was adversity in interest between, on the one hand, a group of defendants whose common identified was that they were owners or operators of motor vehicles involved in a parking lot accident, and on the other, a defendant alleged to have failed to properly inspect and maintain the parking lot. In their statement of defence, the motorist defendants had pleaded that the collision was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the occupier of the parking lot. Discovery of the occupier defendant by the motorist defendants was allowed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.