In what circumstances will a judge and jury decide whether a plaintiff suffered from a fractured skull as a result of a fall from a bridge?

Guichon, supra, is another example where the court found that in addition to the nature of the evidence, the issues were of such an intricate and complex nature that a trial by judge and jury was not appropriate. In that case, the issue of causation was “front and centre” along with contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria. Furthermore, those issues remained intricate despite the clarity of the proven facts. The court cited the following passage from Campbell v. Khan (1996), B.C.J. No. 2005 (S.C.), as being applicable: The issues in this case are extremely unusual and complex, from both a legal and a scientific point of view. There are disputes as to whether the plaintiff suffered any head injury in the motor vehicle accident; whether there were consequential behavioral and psychological changes in the plaintiff; whether there is a causal connection between the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident injuries and the bridge incident; and whether he now suffers hydrocephalus as a result of the motor vehicle accident, the fall from the bridge or infection contracted in hospital.