EX-ADDICT SUES DRUG DEALERS FOR 'PERSONAL HARM'

A Sicamous man who claims he was addicted to cocaine for 10 years is
suing the couple he says sold him the drugs, alleging the dealers
"owed a duty of care to their customers" but caused him "personal
serious harm" instead.

Most legal experts agree the case, filed Dec. 22 in B.C. Supreme Court
by Jay Donald Martin, is based on flimsy legal grounds.

Simon Fraser University criminologist Neil Boyd said a victory for
Martin could open the door for alcoholics to sue bars for supporting
their drinking habits or for smokers to sue corner stores for their
cigarette addiction.

But Kieran Bridge, a spokesman on civil litigation for the B.C. branch
of the Canadian Bar Association, said Martin might as well give it his
best shot.

"If people are suing cigarette manufacturers, why not sue drug
pushers?"

Named as defendants in Martin's suit, filed last month in B.C. Supreme
Court in Nelson, are Dennis Dober and his wife, Lois Judith Dober.

Martin's statement of claim says the RCMP in Sicamous arrested and
charged the defendants with cocaine trafficking in 1998.

Police then withdrew the charge and paid them more than $440,000 as a
trade-off for information about a marijuana-growing operation,
Martin's statement says.

Dober left the Sicamous area following the payout, and could not be
found Wednesday to comment on Martin's allegations.

Martin, 30, says in court documents that he bought cocaine from the
Dobers for 10 years, starting in 1989.

He alleges the Dobers introduced him to crack, "a highly addictive and
powerful form of cocaine," and showed him how to prepare it for nasal
ingestion.

Martin "became strongly addicted to crack cocaine . . . for a number
of years and remains addicted but under reasonable control at the
present time," the statement says.

Martin, who is seeking unspecified damages, claims the addiction
caused him "immense physical, emotional and financial harm."

Boyd said it is not uncommon for people to blame their substance abuse
on the distributor of the substance, but he believes Martin does not
have a strong case because the risks of taking drugs are well known in
society.

"This is one of those cases that, I suppose, allows us to recognize
that certainly distributors have a role to play, but is it any
different from the role of a liquor clerk. Where are you going to draw
the line?"

Bridge said Martin is likely to have to deal with the legal principle
of voluntary risk -- "the principle that if you voluntarily undertake
some risk, you can't complain if you get hurt as a result. It's pretty
hard for any adult to say, 'I didn't realize crack was dangerous or
addictive.' "

But Bridge also said the lawsuit is in some ways similar to the many
cases now before courts all over the world involving cigarette smokers
suing tobacco manufacturers.

Tobacco manufacturers claim people have known for years that
cigarettes are dangerous, said Bridge.

"But crack goes one step further. Everybody knows crack is going to
badly injure you and be highly addictive."

Still, the two are analogous to some extent regarding negligence, he
said.

"There's not a contractual relationship [with cigarettes] because
tobacco manufacturers don't sell to smokers," said Bridge. "You buy
them from grocery store so that's a claim in negligence, not in contract.

"Here, there is a contract to sell crack and buy it, but there's also
possibly a negligence claim."