ICBC Law

As a monopoly insurer ICBC usually fulfills 2 roles in BC auto injury claims.  First ICBC is responsible for processing claims for Part 7 Benefits.  Second ICBC is usually behind the defence of tort claims against at fault motorist in British Columbia.   For anyone involved in a BC vehicle collision it’s important to appreciate this dual role before contacting ICBC to discuss your claim.  I discussed this earlier this year in the below video:

Since ICBC is in the business of defending tort claims you need to be aware that statements you make to your adjuster can be used against you in your personal injury trial as ‘admissions against interest‘.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, demonstrating this.

In today’s case (Cross v. Cross) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 collision.   Both the Plaintiff and Defendant were insured with ICBC.   The Plaintiff was disabled from work for several months following the collision.  He dealt with ICBC directly following the crash and discussed his injuries and disability.

At trial ICBC’s adjuster testified about these discussions in support of an argument that the Plaintiff’s wage loss was not entirely due to the collision but also due to other factors.  Mr. Justice Williams rejected this submission and awarded the Plaintiff damages for his wage loss claim.

Despite the lack of success behind the adjusters evidence, this case demonstrates that ICBC adjusters can and do use statements made by individuals against them in the course of a personal injury lawsuit.  The Court provided the following reasons addressing the Plaintiff’s wage loss claim and the adjuster’s evidence:

[27]         There was another point raised by Ms. Chiasson that is relevant to the issue at hand. She reports that, at or near the conclusion of the program, she “discussed return to work plans with Russell and he stated at the present time he does not have transportation to his pre-injury employment and therefore has not contacted his employer regarding a return to work.”

[28]         This is something of a recurring theme for the defence. The insurance adjuster who had conduct of the file testified as to a conversation that she had with the plaintiff, enquiring about his status and his return to work. She says he told her he was not back at work and when she asked why, part of his answer was to the effect that he didn’t have transportation to get there. He also made reference to his doctor’s advice…

[40] Finally, there is the matter of the plaintiff having told Ms. Chiasson and the adjuster that getting to work would be a problem. I accept that there were conversations of that general tenor. However, I also accept the evidence of the plaintiff that he had the means available to him to get to work. The reason he didn’t go back was because his injuries were still active to an extent that they rendered him unable to do the physical work his job required…

[48]         In view of the findings I have made, it follows that the plaintiff is entitled to recover his wage loss from the date of the accident through to the point in time that he returned to work, June 1, 2009.

[49]         Counsel have agreed that the quantum of that loss is $35,767.

It is well established that a small percentage of people who suffer from whiplash associated disorder following a collision go on to experience pain for a prolonged period of time.

When cases with prolonged injury go to trial it is not uncommon for the Court to hear competing medical evidence as to the cause of the chronic pain.  Oftentimes defence doctors provide opinions that causes unrelated to the collision are responsible for a Plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Powell River Registry, dealing with and dismissing such a defence.

In today’s case (Borgfjord v. Penner) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision.  Fault for the crash was admitted by the Defendant.  The trial focused on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff injured her neck in the crash.  She went on to have chronic symptoms of pain.  The Defendants acknowledged that the Plaintiff likely had on-going pain but argued that this was unrelated to the crash and instead was as a result of ‘degenerative changes’ .  Mr. Justice Shabbits rejected this argument and went on to assess the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages for her chronic whiplash injury at $85,000.  In rejecting the defence argument the Court provided the following useful reasons:

[74] Dr. Dommisse’s opinion is that cervical strain caused the plaintiff’s early problems and that her cervical strain symptoms likely resolved within 6 months to 2 years post accident. His opinion is that degenerative changes caused the plaintiff’s later problems. He says that degenerative changes are the cause of the plaintiff’s continuing problems…

[98]         In my opinion, the plaintiff has established that the accident caused her to suffer a cervical strain.

[99]         In my opinion, Dr. Dommisse is speculating when he opines that the plaintiff’s accident caused symptoms have already resolved. The usual pattern of soft tissue injury may well involve the resolution of symptoms within 6 months to two years post injury, but the plaintiff’s complaints have continued unabated and there is no certainty that the plaintiff’s disc protrusion or degenerative condition of the spine is now or ever has been symptomatic. Dr. Waterman’s opinion is that what he saw on the MRI, (which includes the disc protrusion), is unlikely to be clinically significant. He says it is difficult to attribute spine pain to what he observed.

[100]     I accept the opinion and prognosis of Dr. Waterman. In my opinion, his evaluation and analysis of the medical evidence is persuasive.

[101]     I find that the plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury in the motor vehicle accident and that her whiplash caused injuries are ongoing. I think it more likely than not that the plaintiff falls within that category of patients referred to by Dr. Waterman who experience whiplash caused pain for years post-accident. I find that the most likely outcome of the plaintiff’s injuries is that she will be improved in several years, but that she will suffer intermittent pain which she will be able to largely control by modulating her activities…

[124] I assess the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $85,000…

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) for an injury causing chronic shoulder impingement.

In today’s case (De Gaye v. Bhullar) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 collision in Surrey, BC.   The Defendant ran a red light and struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle with considerable force.  Fault for the crash was admitted.  The trial focussed on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff sustained various injuries, the most serious of which was subacromial impingement to his left shoulder.

Madam Justice Bruce assessed non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 and in doing so made the following findings:

[87] While the expert medical opinions are unanimous that Mr. De Gaye also suffered a left shoulder injury during the accident when he struck the seatbelt harness, there is a dispute as to whether the muscle and ligament damage included thoracic outlet syndrome. Dr. Vaisler and Dr. Stewart-Patterson believe that Mr. De Gaye has a shoulder impingement that would be best managed by arthroscopic surgery followed by a three month recovery period with physiotherapy. Their clinical observations and physical examinations support this opinion. Dr. Vaisler and Dr. Stewart-Patterson also believe that the findings in the ultrasound report are consistent with a shoulder impingement and that this test corroborates their clinical observations. …

[89] On balance, I prefer the opinions of Dr. Stewart-Patterson and Dr. Vaisler. Their opinions are supported by physical tests and clinical observations over a combined period of almost three years between January 2007 and September 2009. While the cortisone injections have not relieved Mr. De Gaye’s pain, there is a significant failure rate in the accuracy of such injections and the ultrasound report suggests there is a mild shoulder impingement according to the opinions of Dr. Vaisler and Dr. Stewart-Patterson…

[92]         While it is apparent that Mr. De Gaye’s loss of enjoyment of life, physical pain, and emotional suffering has continued for over five years since the accident, it is undeniable that the symptoms have drastically improved since March 2005. The back and neck pain reoccur infrequently with extended use or exercise. The primary injury remains the shoulder impingement; however, there is an 80% chance that arthroscopic surgery will relieve the pain symptoms even with repetitive use. The migraine headaches remain problematic but controllable with prescription medication.

[93]         The cases cited by the parties are helpful because they show the range of possible damages for pain and suffering; however, each case must be decided on its own particular facts. In light of the length of time Mr. De Gaye has suffered from his injuries, the serious nature of those injuries and their significant impact on his recreational and work life, balanced against the improvements he has had over time and the high probability of successful surgery for his left shoulder, I find that an award of $70, 000 is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Further to my previous post on this topic, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing when an MRI is a reasonable disbursement in a personal injury lawsuit.

In today’s case (Farrokhmanesh v. Sahib) the Plaintiff was injured in two BC collisions.  He sued for damages and settled his claims prior to trial.  However, the parties could not agree on whether some of the Plaintiff’s disbursements were reasonable.  The parties applied to the Court to resolve the issue and Registrar Sainty held that the Plaintiff’s privately retained MRI was not a recoverable disbursement.  The Plaintiff appealed this ruling.  Mr. Justice Ehrcke dismissed the appeal and in doing so made the following comments about MRI’s in personal injury lawsuits:

[33]         The applicant submits that the Registrar erred in principle by saying that there must be a medical reason for ordering the MRI. In my view, the applicant’s submission seeks to parse the Registrar’s decision too finely. In reviewing the Decision of the Registrar with the appropriate level of deference, it would be wrong to focus on a single word or a phrase taken out of the context in which it occurs.

[34]         When read in context, the Registrar’s reason for disallowing the cost of the MRI is that she found it was not necessarily or properly incurred. In coming to that conclusion, she took into account that no medical professional had advised counsel of the probable utility of an MRI in the particular circumstances of this case. Mr. Fahey had deposed in para. 11 of his affidavit that he was unaware of the plaintiff exhibiting any objective signs of injury when he ordered the MRI scans.

[35]         I am unable to find that the Registrar acted on a wrong principle in disallowing the cost of the MRIs in this case, and I would not interfere with her Decision.

To be on the safe side it is a good idea to have a treating medical practitioner requesting an MRI or other diagnostic test to maximize the chance that these expenses will be recoverable disbursements.

(Please note the case discussed in this post is currently under appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada)

In order to successfully sue for personal injuries in negligence you must prove that the person you are suing was a cause of your injuries.  This sounds simple enough but in fact it is a fairly involved area of personal injury law.   Today the BC Court of Appeal released reasons for judgement attempting to clarify the principle of causation.

In today’s case (Clements v. Clements) the Plaintiff, a passenger on a motorcycle, was seriously injured when the driver “pulled out to pass another vehicle, (then) a sharp object, likely a nail, punctured the rear tire of the motorcycle causing it to rapidly deflate”.  This caused the motorcycle to capsize and flip over resulting in injuries to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff sued and succeeded at the trial level with the judge finding that the Defendant was driving too fast and the bike was overloaded and this materially contributed to the loss of control.  The insurer for the Defendant appealed arguing that the judge was wrong in using the ‘material contribution‘ test.  The BC Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

The Court discussed the law of causation at length at paragraphs 38-62 and the judgement is worth reviewing in full for anyone interested in this issue.  The Court concluded with the following short summary of the test Judges are to use in establishing ‘causation’ in BC negligence lawsuits:

[63]         In summary, having regard to the over-arching policy that the material-contribution test is available only when a denial of liability under the but-for test would offend basic notions of fairness and justice, I agree with the following statement made by Professor Knutsen in setting out his conclusions (at 187):

g)         The “but for” test rarely fails, and currently only in situations involving circular causation and dependency causation:

1)         Circular causation involves factual situations where it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove which one of two or more possible tortious causes are the cause of the plaintiff’s harm;

2)         Dependency causation involves factual situations where it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove if a third party would have taken some action in the face of a defendant’s negligence and such third party’s action would have facilitated harm to the plaintiff;

h)         If the “but for” test fails, the plaintiff must meet two pre-conditions to utilize the material contribution test for causation:

1)         It must be impossible for the plaintiff to prove causation (either due to circular or dependency causation); and,

2)         The plaintiff must be able to prove that the defendant breached the standard of care, exposed the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and the plaintiff must have suffered that type of injury.

[64]         What does this mean for the present case?  It means that once the trial judge determined that Mrs. Clements had failed to establish that the motorcycle would not have capsized but for Mr. Clements’s negligence, he should have found that causation had not been proven.  This is not a case involving either circular or dependency causation.  Rather, it is a case like many others in which, given the current state of knowledge, it is not possible to prove whether the negligent actions of a defendant caused harm.  I do not consider it either unfair or unjust, or, to use the words of Professor Knutsen (at 172), “just plain wrong” not to fix Mr. Clements with liability when Mrs. Clements has been unable to show factually that his negligence was a cause of her damages.

Further to last week’s post on this topic, reasons for judgment were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the issue of fault for intersection crashes.  This week’s case is of particular interest because a ‘dominant‘ driver was found completely at fault for striking a left hand turning vehicle at an intersection.

In today’s case (Kelly v. Yuen) the Plaintiff was attempting a left hand turn at a light controlled intersection in Vancouver, BC.   As she turned the Defendant, who was approaching from the opposite direction, entered the intersection resulting in a collision.  The Defendant was travelling in the curb lane which, at the time of the crash, was restricted to buses and bicycles.  The Defendant argued that he had a green light and the Plaintiff was fully at fault.  The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant should not have been in the restricted lane and was fully at fault.  Ultimately the Court sided with the Plaintiff and allocated 100% of the responsibility for the crash on the through-driver.  Mr. Justice MacKenzie provided the following summary of some legal principles at play in these types of cases:

[23]         The legal principles with regards to left turn situations have been addressed in many cases. In Pacheco (Guardian ad litem) v. Robinson (1993), 75 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273 (C.A.) at para. 15, Legg J. stated:

In my opinion, a driver who wishes to make a left hand turn at an intersection has an obligation not to proceed unless it can be done safely. Where each party’s vision of the other is blocked by traffic, the dominant driver who is proceeding through the intersection is generally entitled to continue and the servient left-turning driver must yield the right of way. The existence of a left-turning vehicle does not raise a presumption that something unexpected might happen and cast a duty on the dominant driver to take extra care. Where the defendant, as here, has totally failed to determine whether a turn can be made safely, the defendant should be held 100 percent at fault for a collision which occurs.

[24]         In Carich v. Cook (1992), 90 D.L.R. (4th) 322 at 326 (B.C.C.A.), Lambert J.A. had this to say:

… The question as a driver turns left is whether there is any vehicle in any approaching lanes that constitutes an immediate hazard. If there is, the turn should not be made. If there is not, then the turn can be made and of course, care should be taken throughout the turn and as each new lane is entered to make sure that the situation as it was assessed when the turn started has not changed in the meantime. …

[25]         Of course, each case must be determined on its own particular facts. For example, in Uyeyama (Guardian ad litem of) v. Wittenberg, [1985] B.C.J. No. 1883 (C.A.), the BC Court of Appeal determined that a left-turning was not negligent for having entered an intersection, having failed to detect the excessive speed of the defendant’s vehicle. In addition, the left-turning driver was entitled to assume that the oncoming vehicle would stop at a red light and according to traffic law. The court concluded at para. 44 that the left turning driver had “exercised due care and commendable prudence in taking the action she did in attempting to make a difficult left turn.”

[26]         This case was cited with approval by the BC Court of Appeal in Kokkinis v. Hall (1996), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 273 (C.A.).

[27]         The court in Kokkinis considered other cases where the court held in favour of the servient driver. The court looked to Morgan v. Hauck (1988), 27 B.C.L.R. (2d) 118 (C.A.), a case where the BC Court of Appeal held that a dominant vehicle which had accelerated towards an intersection despite amber warning lights and then entered the intersection when the light was red could not rely on the relevant section of the Motor Vehicle Act to escape liability. In Kokkinis at para. 6, Newbury J.A. speaking for the court summarized the position taken in Morgan as follows:

… Esson, J.A. (as he then was), for example emphasised the “heavy onus which rests upon drivers approaching signals of this kind to make due allowance for the possibility that there will be a vehicle seeking to make a turn such as the plaintiff was making on this day. Their clear duty is to comply with the warning lights and to not ‘run the red’.”  But for the fact that appellate courts should, he said, vary apportionments of blame made by trial judges only in very rare circumstances, Esson, J.A. (with whom Macfarlane, J.A. concurred) would have considered setting aside even the 10 percent allocation of fault.

[28]         At para. 7 of Kokkinis, Newbury J.A. considered the Court of Appeal’s decision in Brucks v. Caslavsky, 45 B.C.A.C. 62, and stated the following:

A more recent case from this Court along similar lines is Brucks et al. v. Caslavsky et al. (19 April 1994) Vancouver Registry CA016390 (B.C.C.A.), which apparently was not cited to the trial judge. There, this Court rejected the argument that the onus placed by s. 176 of the Act is “absolute” and that in deciding whether an oncoming car constitutes an “immediate hazard”, a left-turning driver must consider the possibility that any oncoming motorist may intend to speed through an intersection and disobey the traffic signal. Taylor, J.A. for the Court quoted the well-known statement of principle of Lord Atkinson in Toronto Ry. Co. v. King et al. [1908] A.C. 260, at 269:

. . . traffic in the streets would be impossible if the driver of each vehicle did not proceed more or less on the assumption that the drivers of all other vehicles will do what it is their duty to do, namely, observe the rules regulating the traffic of the streets.

[29]         Even though Kokkinis and Morgan dealt with vehicles which approached an intersection and turned left on an amber light, the principles and observations stated in these decisions are helpful. At para. 10 of Kokkinis the court stated that the servient driver should not be faulted for having diverted her attention momentarily from oncoming traffic to check cross traffic. This is because servient drivers have “the duty to be aware not only of oncoming traffic, but also of cross traffic, pedestrians, and whatever else may be present in the intersection.”

[30]         At the same paragraph, the court added:

… To say that the plaintiff can be found at fault because she relied on the assumption that Mr. Hall would stop, and because she checked cross-traffic, would in my view subvert the duty on Mr. Hall to bring his vehicle to a safe stop at the amber light as the other traffic did. …

[31]         The authorities make it clear in my opinion that for liability to be found against the dominant driver in situations where the servient driver is making a left turn in front of stopped traffic, the evidence must establish that the dominant driver had a sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident, of which a reasonably careful and skilful driver would have availed him or herself (Pacheco, para. 18).

In finding the Defendant fully at fault the Court reasoned as follows:

[59]         The circumstances here are significantly different. This is not a situation where the servient driver has disregarded her statutory duty. Here it is just the reverse. Mr. Yuen flagrantly ignored the restriction on travel in the curb lane in a clear attempt, in my opinion, to drive along the restricted lane in order to get to his destination earlier rather than wait like other responsible drivers who were complying with the curb lane restriction. As Esson J.A. said in Morgan, I am satisfied that Mr. Yuen should have made “due allowance for the possibility that there will be a vehicle seeking to make a turn such as the plaintiff was making on this day”.

[60]          As Ker J. said in Rothenbusch at para. 149, “Who has the statutory right of way is informative; however, it does not determine liability in an accident. Drivers with a statutory right of way must still exercise caution to avoid accidents where possible.”

[61]         In these circumstances, I am satisfied a reasonably careful and prudent driver would not have pulled into the restricted curb lane, as Mr. Yuen did with limited vision, and accelerate towards a backed up intersection at an excessive rate of speed. As the dominant driver, Mr. Yuen was not required to take “extraordinary steps to avoid an accident or to show exceptional proficiency in the operation of a motor vehicle.” (Salaam v. Abramovic, 2010 BCCA 212 at para. 25). However, I am satisfied a reasonably prudent driver, exercising reasonable caution, would have had a sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident.

[62]         Furthermore, Ms. Kelly did not breach her statutory duty under s. 174 to yield the right of way. She took reasonable steps to determine she could make the left turn safely. The evidence which I have accepted establishes that when Ms. Kelly looked right and entered the curb lane, the Yuen vehicle was not “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard”.

[63]         As a result, I am satisfied that the accident was caused solely by the negligent driving of Mr. Yuen. The defence has not established any contributory negligence on the part of Ms. Kelly.

Further to my dozens of previous posts discussing ICBC’s Low Velocity Impact (LVI) Defence to tort claims involving crashes with little vehicle damage, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, once again rejecting this defence.

Today’s case is a great example demonstrating that compensable injuries can be sustained even in true ‘low velocity impacts‘.  In today’s case (De Leon v. Harold) the Plaintiff was involved in a two vehicle collision in 2007 in Vancouver, BC.  The Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Fault for the crash was admitted.  The trial focussed on whether the Plaintiff sustained any injuries.

There was no dispute that the collision was minor.  The Plaintiff described the impact as a “bump“.  The Defendant testified that her car “tapped” the Plaintiff’s car.  The modest impact resulted in $0 in vehicle damage.

Despite this the Plaintiff was injured.  The injuries were, fortunatley, relatively modest and made a meaningful recovery within 6 months.  ICBC defended the case based on the LVI program and argued that the Plaintiff was not injured in the collision.  Madam Justice Power rejected this argument and in doing so repeated the following helpful reasons addressing the LVI defence:

[14]         In Lubick v. Mei [2008] B.C.C.A. No. 777, Macaulay J. stated at paragraph 5:

[5]        The courts have long debunked the suggestion that low impact can be directly correlated with lack of compensable injury. In Gordon v. Palmer [1993] B.C.J. No. 474 (S.C.), Thackeray J. as he then was, made the following comments that are still apposite today.

I do not subscribe to the view that if there is no motor vehicle damage then there is no injury. This is the philosophy that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may follow, but it has no application in court. It is not a legal principle of which I am aware and I have not heard it endorsed as a medical principle.

He goes on to point out that the presence and extent of injuries are determined on the evidence, not with “extraneous philosophies that some would impose on the judicial process.”  In particular he noted that there was no evidence to substantiate the defence theory in the case before him. . . .

[15]         In Dao v. Vance 2008 BCSC 1092 Williams J. stated:

[18]      This was undoubtedly a low-velocity collision where damage to the vehicle was so minimal as to be almost non-existent. All of the evidence supports that conclusion. In such instances, claims for compensation for injury are often resisted on the basis that there is reason to doubt their legitimacy. Furthermore, in this case, the principle evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim is subjective, that is, it is her self report. There is not a great deal of objective evidence to support her description of the injuries she claims to have suffered.

[19]      In response to those concerns, I would observe that there is no principle of law which says that because damage to the vehicle is slight or non-detectable that it must follow that there is no injury. Certainly, as a matter of common sense, where the collision is of slight force, any injury is somewhat likely at least to be less severe than in a situation where the forces are greater, such as to result in significant physical damage to the automobiles. Nevertheless, I do not accept that there can be no injury where there is no physical damage to the vehicles.

Madam Justice Power assessed the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $12,000 and in doing so made the following findings about her injuries:

[19]         I am satisfied that the plaintiff has discharged this burden and that soft-tissue injuries to her neck and back were suffered as the result of the accident. I am satisfied that the injuries were substantially resolved within two months of the accident as the result of the plaintiff’s active efforts in the first two months to attend chiropractic and massage therapy and that the injury was almost completely resolved within six months…

[22]         Having regard to the fact that each award must be based on the unique circumstances of the case, and that the plaintiff’s stoicism is a factor that should not penalize the plaintiff (Giang v. Clayton 2005 B.C.J 163 2005, (B.C.C.A.)), I am of the view that an appropriate award for the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages in this case is $12,000. The plaintiff will be awarded $1,200 for four days of lost work as the agreed-to amount of the parties for special damages.

[23]         Therefore the total damage award is $13,200. Costs may be spoken to or written submissions may be made at the agreement of the parties.

In British Columbia motorist’s obligations to turn headlights on are set out in section 4.01 of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations.  This section state that :

4.01 A person who drives or operates a vehicle on a highway must illuminate the lamps required by this Division

(a)  from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise, and

(b)  at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, objects on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 m.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court considering this section and determining whether a motorist can be partially at fault for a crash for failing to have their lights on prior to sunset.

In today’s case (Schurmann v. Hoch) the Plaintiff was involved in a two vehicle collision.  He was leaving a stop sign and attempting to turn left at an intersection when the Defendant, approaching from the Plaintiff’s left, struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle.   The Defendant was the ‘dominant‘ driver and had the right of way.  The Plaintiff was found at fault for leaving a stop sign when it was unsafe to do so.  However the Court was also asked to determine if the Defendant was partially at fault.

At the time of the crash it was a few minutes prior to sunset.  The lighting conditions “posed visual problems for a person attempting to turn left“.  The Defendant was driving a dark pick-up truck and did not put on his vehicle’s running lights or headlights.   The Defendant was found 50% at fault for this failure.  In arriving at this decision Madam Justice Maisonville provided the following reasons:

[44]         I conclude, however, on the facts before the court that the defendant, driving a dark navy pickup truck without running lights or headlights in effect at approximately less than five minutes before sunset in conditions where there were clouds and it had commenced spitting and light raining, was negligent and failed to act reasonably in all of the circumstances by not putting on the running lights and headlights of his vehicle to make himself visible to other motorists.

[45]         I find that the defendant by failing to have his running lights on was negligent. His actions created an objectively unreasonable risk of harm. The defendant argues that he was in compliance with the statute insofar as it was not necessary to have the lights of his vehicle on as it was not yet sunset. I find however that section 4.01(a) of the Regulations speaks to ideal weather conditions, not conditions as they existed on the afternoon and early dusk of January 10, 2006. Those were cloudy conditions in circumstances where it had just begun to rain. Accordingly this situation was governed by s. 4.01(b) of the Regulations.

[46]         In considering the issue of the impact of breach of a statute, Dickson J., as he then was, held at page 225:

Breach of statute, where it has an effect upon civil liability, should be considered in the context of the general law of negligence. Negligence and its common law duty of care have become pervasive enough to serve the purpose invoked for the existence of the action for statutory breach: see Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205.

[47]         It must not be forgotten that the other elements of tortious responsibility equally apply to situations involving statutory breach, i.e. principles of causation and damages. To be relevant at all, the statutory breach must have caused the damage of which the plaintiff complains. Should this be so, the violation of the statute should be evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant (see Saskatchewan Wheat Pool).

[48]         The defendant submitted to the court that in order to find negligence one must first find a breach of the statute. I am mindful of the comments of Dickson J. Other elements of tortious responsibility equally apply – it is not necessary to find breach or for that matter compliance with a statute to find actions that created an objectively unreasonable risk of harm…

50] In this case, but for the defendant not having his running or head lights on, the plaintiff would have seen him, and would not have attempted the turn. The defendant thus breached the duty of care he owed to the plaintiff causing the plaintiff the unforeseen risk of injury ─ and he did in fact suffer injury.

(UPDATE November 18, 2011 - The case discussed below was upheld in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Court of Appeal.  These can be accessed here)

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Campbell River Registry, discussing the duties of landlords to take reasonable steps to make sure buildings they own are safe for tenants and guests.

In today’s case (Jack v. Tekavec) the Defendant owned an apartment in Gold River, BC.  He rented this out to a third party who invited the Plaintiff over.  While visiting the Plaintiff “leaned against a balcony railing which gave way.   (He) plummetted three stories to the ground and was badly injured“. The Plaintiff sued the building owner arguing he was careless for failing to keep the balcony railing in good repair.  Mr. Justice Savage agreed.  In finding the Defendant at fault for the Plaintiff’s injuries the Court stated as follows:

[38]         The evidence establishes that the defendant, as owner and operator of the apartment block, is a landlord pursuant to s. 1 of the RTA.  I find that the defendant is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the deck and owes a duty of care pursuant to s. 6 of the Act to the guests of his tenants including Jack.

[39]         That duty of care includes, in my opinion, a duty to inspect.  The duty to inspect is part of the duty of the landlord to take reasonable care in carrying out the responsibility for the repair of premises under the Act. ..

[44]         In this case the defendant knew of a problem with the balcony railing before the tenancy commenced.  The tenants requested that he repair the balcony railing but he chose not to do so.  The defendant was also aware that the tenant, through Billy, took it upon herself to effect a repair when he did not respond to the requests.  The defendant saw that the work done by the tenant was not done properly.

[45]         The defendant knew that Billy, who did the work, was not skilled.  Although this repair was his responsibility, as the landlord responsible for maintenance, and he knew the work was done wrongly, he chose not to fix it.  He was well aware of the danger of improper work on the balcony railing.

[46]         In my opinion Tekavec owed a duty of care to Mark and to Mark’s guests including Jack.  The standard of care required that he respond to requests of tenants to inspect the tenanted premises regarding the safety problems they raised.  The standard of care also required that, if a tenant did work on a balcony railing that he saw was wrongly done, that he inspect and repair or cause to have repaired the balcony railing himself.

[47]         By choosing inaction he breached the standard of care of a reasonable landlord responsible for such maintenance.  His breach of the standard of care was a direct cause of the accident and Jack’s injuries.

[48]         In the result, I find Tekavec liable to Jack for damages.

The Plaintiff’s damages included an award of $100,000 for non-pecuniary loss.  In arriving at this figure the Court noted the extent and severity of the injuries which were summarized as follows:

[15] Briefly, Jack’s multiple injuries included a broken pelvis, fractured ribs, fractured vertebrae, and internal injuries resulting in hernias.  While in hospital he developed pneumonia requiring a tracheotomy.  His pelvis fracture required a metal plate and screws.  He pelvis fracture healed but he has lost 2” in height.  He now weighs less than 200 lbs and walks with a slight limp.  After six months he returned to work but is now unable to do heavy lifting.  ..

[63]         I have earlier briefly described Jack’s injuries (paras. 13, 14, and 15).  I will not repeat that description here.  His diagnosis was as follows:

(a)        Vertically instable fracture of left side of pelvis involving fractures of the sacrum and symphyseal disruption;

(b)        Stable disruption of the right SI joint; bilateral transverse process fractures of L4 and 5 vertebra; left transverse process fractures of the Li and L2 vertebra;

(c)        Cecal volvulus resulting in right hemicolectomy; facial fractures not requiring intervention;

(d)        Post trauma aspiration pneumonia with respiratory compromise requiring tracheostomy;

(e)        Fracture of left 9^th and 10^th rib;

(f)         Post operative problems included mild infection of lower part of the abdominal incision; incisional hernia requiring surgery; mild malunion of let hemi pelvis resulting in 1 to 1.5 centimeter shortening of left leg; degenerative changes at the lumbar spine involving L4-5 and 12-S1 levels.

(g)        Pelvic x-rays revealed slight malunion with the left hemi-pelvis being approximately 1 to 1.5 centimeters higher than the right; posterior screw is slightly bent in keeping with this shift in position; hip joints are normal on x-ray; lumbar spine x-rays show degenerative changes at L4-5 level and L5-S1 level. …

[70] In my view, an appropriate award in these circumstances for past and future pain and suffering, loss of amenities and other non-pecuniary losses is $100,000.

As I’ve recently written, a Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate their losses after being injured otherwise the damages they are entitled to can be reduced.

The most common example of the ‘failure to mitigate’ defence comes up in personal injury claims where defence lawyers argue that a Plaintiff would have recovered more quickly and more completely had they followed through with the suggestions of their medical practitioners.  If evidence supporting such an argument is accepted then a Plaintiff’s award can be reduced.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this defence in action in an ICBC claim.

In today’s case (Cripps v. Overend) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 “t-bone” collision.  The Defendant came through a stop sign at high speed and was responsible for the crash.  Fault was admitted and the trial focused on the value of the claim.   The Plaintiff’s injuries totally disabled him for two months and continued to partially disable him by the time of trial.

Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein assessed the Plaintiff’s damages at just over $141,000 then reduced the award by 25% to account for the Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate.  Specifically the Court found the Plaintiff unreasonably failed to follow his physician’s recommendation to undertake an exercise program and had he done so his injuries would have had a better course of recovery.  In reaching this conclusion the Court provided the following reasons:

[96]         There is evidence to satisfy the onus in this case. Mr. Cripps failed in his duty to mitigate his loss by exercising consistently and getting active. Mr. Schneider provided exercises in 2006. He had abandoned these by the time he saw Dr. Adrian in 2007. Dr. Adrian recommended reconditioning in 2007. There is no proof of any impediment to exercise other than Mr. Cripps felt sorry for himself. Dr. Smith highly recommends vigorous exercise to elevate mood.

[97]         The court must reduce damages based on its assessment of the consequences that flow from the failure to mitigate: Tayler v. Loney, 2009 BCSC 742.

[98]         The defendants seek a significant reduction of damages in the range of 25% to 40%: Middleton v. Morcke, 2007 BCSC 804; Latuszek v. Bel-Air Taxi (1992), Limited 2009 BCSC 798.

[99]         The benefits of exercise were proven when Mr. Cripps began to go to the gym in 2009. Once Mr. Cripps started this exercise program he was a different person. Had Mr. Cripps started and maintained an exercise program as his doctors and physiotherapist urged him to do, it is probable his prognosis would be more favorable. The failure to mitigate implicates not only his physical injuries, but any emotional ones, including irritability that may have contributed to his marriage breakdown.

[100]     There will be a reduction of damages of 25% for failure to mitigate.

For more information about the law of mitigation in injury claims you can click here to access my archived posts.