How have the courts sever the issues of liability and quantum in a motor vehicle accident case?

In Bassi v. Bassi, all parties agreed to sever the issues of liability and quantum on grounds that the "evidence relative to liability [was] unrelated to the evidence required to determine the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries": at para. 9. The parties also agreed that a determination on liability was amenable to the summary trial process because credibility was not at stake and liability substantially turned on the evidence of one witness: at para. 9.

Nason v. Nunes involved two lawsuits heard together. Both lawsuits arose out of a collision that occurred after a truck driven by the defendant Nunes lost control on a bridge extending over the Okanagan River. The plaintiffs were passengers in the truck.

Among other things, they alleged that ice on the bridge contributed to the collision and was the product of inadequately maintained road conditions. Not unlike the case before me, the contractor responsible for the road's maintenance was named as a defendant in both lawsuits. Initially, the Province was also named as a defendant. However, by consent, it was later removed: Nason v. Nunes at para. 47.

All parties agreed in Nason v. Nunes that liability should be addressed first, with the assessment of damages adjourned to a later date: at para. 3. They also agreed that the issue of liability was suitable for consideration on a summary trial basis: at para. 3.

It is apparent from Nason v. Nunes that there was "little actual disagreement about the facts among the parties": at para. 4. There was furthermore "no serious dispute" that the defendant contractor had met its contractual requirements in maintaining the road: at para. 15.