News Sections
Ex-crystal meth addict successfully sues dealer
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(94)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wed. Jan. 9 2008 10:27 AM ET
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.
User Tools
Related Websites
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(94)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
This is a moral test for voters in the municipal election. Electing him will be a stamp of approval for his actions. I strongly believe that the first thoughts should be for the person he has publicly humiliated, his partner. By his conduct he has made of himself, merely, a footnote in the election.


Comments are now closed for this story
P.R.
0
said
0
What is wrong with the legal system in Saskatchewan???
Am I the only one who see's the disgusting angle of this?
Dixie from Alberta
0
said
0
Matt
0
said
0
Everyone is aware of the dangers of drugs, especially meth. This makes no more sense than suing cigarette companies for cancer, when packs have had warning labels for 40+ years, and quitting programs/advertisements have been increasingly imposed on us. I understand lawsuits filed 15-20 years ago by smokers who were misled but nowadays the warnings are clear.
Paul
0
said
0
Smokin Joe Canadian
0
said
0
Ya Right!!
Good Luck with that!!
Davis
0
said
0
james
0
said
0
N.v.L
0
said
0
N.v.L
0
said
0
Shouldn't the dealer just be arrested for selling drugs?? Neither of them are victims here.
dh
0
said
0
Jon
0
said
0
Might as well sue her parents at the same time for not helping her stop I guess? lol
Brian Livingstone
0
said
0
P.R. said it..what is wrong with the legal system altogether!
B.G.
0
said
0
What a joke!
I'm appalled and disgusted!
Fred
0
said
0
I don't understand how someone can sell meth to a kid with a clean conscience. I say we bring back public floggings for those people.
Eric
0
said
0
Raymond
0
said
0
Alexander
0
said
0
Lou
0
said
0
JJ
0
said
0
I commend this girl for being brave enough to sue her dealer. What gives the DEALER the right to provide drugs to people? Yes she was at fault as much as he was, but she wouldn't have become addicted and suffered a heart attack if he would not have provided the Deadly Drug.
my 2 cents
Lisa
0
said
0
Patrick
0
said
0
Shirley Catton
0
said
0
S.C.
JK
0
said
0
And the girl didn't know it was addictive? Maybe she shouldn't have smoked it. Apparently, drug users are no longer responsible for their actions.
Amy
0
said
0
P.R.P.
0
said
0
Anonymous commentor
0
said
0
SD
0
said
0
She caused this problem herself, and its time she grows up and takes responsibility for her own life.
How much more of our Canadian Tax Dollars Must be wasted on pointless trials like this one?
Ian
0
said
0
This is why drugs are illegal because they can cause serious/fatal harm to people. You can’t take illegal drugs then complain about how they hurt you.
That's like if someone deliberately overdosed on a bottle of pills then blamed it on the manufacture. “Your pills hurt me when I took the whole bottle” DUH!
What’s wrong with Canada’s legal system!
Paul
0
said
0
Sharon Corrant
0
said
0
Tamara
0
said
0
PC
0
said
0
Then the drug dealer can sue his supplier, on and on all the way up the chain and then the police can just go and arrest the top guy as they'll have all the evidence they need from the court transcripts.
Brilliant.
D.B.
0
said
0
Suing my car dealer for selling me the truck that I run into a telephone pole while speeding?
Suing the LCBO for selling alcohol to the drunk before he drives into a ditch (or worse) ?
JH
0
said
0
CA
0
said
0
What's wrong with the legal system is that it allows drug dealers to roam the streets...period. And how about the creeps that disguise the drug in candy appearance and give it to children ??
J
0
said
0
David in Ontario
0
said
0
P.R. you are DEFINATELY not alone on this one!
S. Reynolds
0
said
0
DM
0
said
0
The drug dealers are fully aware of the effects their product has on people. Why shouldn't they be liable given the addictive nature of the product? The successful lawsuits against the tobacco insudtry in the USA clearly takes away liability from the user.
And by the way, selling illegal drugs is ILLEGAL!!
Who really cares if these criminals are sued?
R.B
0
said
0
You must be a drug dealer for this to bother you...The only way to hurt these dealers is to go after there money, I think it's a great victory as Police have to much red tape in catching these dealers and making charges stick!
cam
0
said
0
MD
0
said
0
Michael Miles
0
said
0
This is the problem.
The only goal for the government is to keep its population down and out. A focused population is enough to bring down the government and they know it so they keep us down in misery.
Wake up people. They are going to kill us.
T.F
0
said
0
C.C.
0
said
0
Bruce in Edmonton
0
said
0
William Tepperman
0
said
0
Lily
0
said
0
KH
0
said
0
priska urben
0
said
0
I totally agree with P.R. and all the others who feel it is high time that we all take responsibility for our own actions!
PU
A
0
said
0
Former addict
0
said
0
Obviously you don't know the facts about addiction and how powerless a person becomes once addicted to a substance. No, the dealer didn't force the victim to purchase the drug but he certainly helped support her habit by illegaly supplying it.
As a former addict (clean for six years now) I agree with the court's decision and I think this should be an example followed by other Provinces.
Withought the dealers on the streets, the initial "experimentation" with drugs would diminish significantly and prevent people from eventually getting "hooked" in the first place.
Dealers are breaking the law, they are ruining lives and families and they should pay for it.
If every addict (willing to get help) would follow suit and sue their dealers, you would see a decrease of dealers on the streets, and that's most important.
Lee H.
0
said
0
JL
0
said
0
M.R.
0
said
0
Tom in Windsor
0
said
0
She almost died and this dealer was going to get off scott-free?
If you can't get him one way, get him another.
She probably won't get a cent from this guy, and maybe she shouldn't, but at least the police have something else to use against him. If he doesn't pay up...they got him.
Dealers should be hit by the legal system any way possible.
What they really deal is death and misery.
David
0
said
0
Intelligence: The Anti-drug
0
said
0
Doubtfully.
If you're stupid enough to buy and use meth, then you should take the punishment you get for it. You've gotta be pretty slow-witted right from the start to even put that rubbish in your body!!
Richard Le Clerc
0
said
0
Lee
0
said
0
Dave
0
said
0
Tom (Ottawa)
0
said
0
It is a sort of twisted analogy, if it works good for the Courts, and any future resident of the province that might fall prey to drugs.
Drug dealers always give you a first "sample" to someone just curious about a drug. This is very similar to food tasting in the legal business.
If there are no drug dealers then the chances of ruining lives are curbed, not to say that that individual might not find personal means of acquiring a high.
Nonetheless, if you start taking out pieces of the puzzle then eventually it will cease to exist or another issue might arise.
In this case, I feel drugs of this nature should be outlawed and fine people a big sum for dealing and usage, once the fine is greater than the profit and trouble then it becomes less lucrative to sell and consume.
TC
0
said
0
Based on this case, if I were the government profiting from the sale of cigarettes then I'd be a bit worried.
Yah right! (dream on...)
NC
0
said
0
Allan Eizinas
0
said
0
That is the nature of our judicial system.
If you win your suit or not depends on what kind of defence or counter-suit is presented.
In this case there was no defence so the suit was won by default.
It does not set a precedent for anything.
Peter - Calgary
0
said
0
What i'm worried about is a lot of money getting into the hands of addicts.
I'm a recovering addict myself and i'm saying this. Sure, it's possible, through a miracle, to stop. But trust me, the chances aren't that high.
Wag
0
said
0
A.L.
0
said
0
KH
It seems fair to me - if the dealer misrepresented the product and brought undisclosed medical conditions, the dealer should be sued.
[/QUOTE]
How did the dealer misrepresent the drug and bring about "undisclosed medical conditions" ... The pharmacology of the drug is a KNOWN central nervous system stimulant which affecting neurochemical mechanisms responsible for regulating heart rate (among others).
Cj
0
said
0
I believe that drug dealers should be held accountable but this girl needs to deal with her own issues and not blame them on someone else.
Bejhan
0
said
0
Zand
0
said
0
Yes I'm glad that there is one less dealer on the street. Am I happy about the way he got there? No.
I am glad the "victim" acknowledges that she will probably not profit from her win. Why should she? There wasn't a gun held to her head and forcing her to do the meth with her dealer.
I am sorry to hear that she has now developed life long health issues and may not be able to have children, but perhaps this too will give people pause. If making an example out of the dealer will stop someone else from dealing, perhaps she too will be an example for people to not engage in illegal drug use.
FC - Ontario
0
said
0
Where is the focus here? Smokin Joe - you're right on! Same goes for the Liquor Stores.
This judge should be ashamed at this decision as well as the cost to the taxpayer!
Pam
0
said
0
All of this "I'd rather be in the third world" nonsense is extremely short-sighted and seems just plain ignorant.
Tim
0
said
0
J.P.
0
said
0
ishmael
0
said
0
Time will tell if the courts will be flooded with more cases like this.
Steve
0
said
0
GW
0
said
0
DD from Alberta
0
said
0
Jamie from Ontario
0
said
0
KG
0
said
0
JD
0
said
0
The self centered commenter’s are concerned about their tax dollars instead of the well being of society.
The ignorant commenter’s regurgitate the propaganda they’ve been indoctrinated by. “Punish the dealer and the problem will go away.”
And while the majority of commenter’s believe this is one individuals attempt to neglect the free will and choice of personal responsibility, they are still suffering from the illusion this is a simple right and wrong situation.
While the legal proceedings that will follow are likely to be the topic of comedic punch lines for weeks to come, the only true value apparent in this story is the media attention it has been receiving. This coverage will hopefully contribute to the ongoing awareness campaign about the dangers of meth.
Drug use is complex. It has been universally woven and entrenched into the societal fabric of mankind. Almost everyone here has passed judgment without coming to the realization they too have involvement with drug trafficking. History has shown revolutions being suppressed and lands being stolen as personal ambitions empower us to deploy drugs as an weapon against our fellowman.
Drug trafficking, next to prostitution, is the oldest industry of our race. It’s time we treated drug use for what it is. A societal problem derived from human nature.
Stephan
0
said
0
Sounds like she's taking responsibility to me.
If you don't do anything about a problem, chances are it wont just go away.
Commendable job on doing your part to put a stop to this Sandy!!!!
kevin
0
said
0
Jennifer Gierl
0
said
0
Kayla
0
said
0
I think it is very simplistic to say that if you get rid of the dealers, then there will be no drugs, and then there will be no addicts. There's something called supply and demand. There are way too many factors at play to say that a reduced supply will lessen the demand. Doesn't work that way.
Also, comparing drug dealers to bar owners is a little silly. Alcohol is a legal substance in this county and it's production, sales, and consumption are governed by various agencies. By agreeing to participate with those activities they are agreeing to the rules that apply. Since illegal drugs are not regulated then the same rules shouldn’t apply. The victim should not expect a duty of care from the drug dealer.
Shelley S
0
said
0
Khai
0
said
0
We teach our citizens that illegal drug use is to be avoided at all costs, but then reward them in a Canadian court of law? When considering drug use, new users now may feel a sense of protection for negative outcomes that may befall them. "Oh well, even if I get addicted, I'll just sue my dealer!" seems like a get-rich-quick scheme that holds financial appeal for many would-be users, and may weight then should I/shouldn't I equation more heavily in the drug-use direction.
This removal of consequences is an unfortunate stand to take on a subject that negatively impacts the health of so many.
Disappointed in Edmonton
0
said
0
The reporting Journalist clearly states that the drug dealer did not have a defense filed. It was an undefended judgment, and really as simple a concept there is out there, no defense means the Plaintiff gets the judgment.
Beyond being novel there is remarkable about this case, what is remarkable is the willingness of Canadians to continue to criticize the judicial system in circumstances where it would appear as though many of the commentators didn't read beyond the title of the article.
You don't need to have a doctorate on the operation of our legal system, but before you take the opportunity to pontificate on the shortfallings of the legal system, try educating yourself first -- perhaps try starting at actually reading and understanding the journalist's article.
Wendy
0
said
0
A.D.
0
said
0
She is brave and I think its a brilliant way to get drug dealers to think twice. Maybe this is a step in the right direction for our somewhat faulty legal system.
Good Job Sandy!!!
David
0
said
0
CJ
0
said
0
Rick
0
said
0