ICBC Law

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, finding that a claim for damages for a break-up of a relationship following a collision is too remote for liability.

In last week’s case (Shinkaruk v. Crouch) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 collision.  He was found 20% at fault for the crash with the Defendant shouldering 80% of the blame.  The Plaintiff had “a significant history of low back pain” and this pre-existing injury was aggravated by the collision.  He was awarded damages for this aggravation.

During the period of aggravation the Plaintiff experienced difficulties with his partner and eventually she asked the Plaintiff to leave.  The Court found that this event was too remote to attract damages and in doing so Madam Justice Saunders provided the following reasons:

[59] It was apparent from Ms. Wahlwroth’s description of their interaction with each other, during the period in which Mr. Shinkaruk was convalescing from the accident, that their disagreements were largely a function of the two of them having very different visions of their roles and responsibilities within their relationship. It may be that these differences did not become manifest when the two of them had different working schedules. But with Mr. Shinkaruk at home in the evenings, she testified that she found it difficult to have him there without him making any contributions to the housework, making meals, cleaning up dishes, and doing other tasks which she felt he was physically capable of. She contrasted his lack of contribution with efforts made by husbands of friends of hers, when the couples had dinner together. Their differences were compounded by their poor communication skills, and they became trapped in a cycle of angry arguments, sniping and a lack of mutual respect. This climaxed during the December 2006 family vacation, when they spent little time in each other’s company, and had heated arguments when they did. She did not want her 13 year-old son exposed to that kind of behaviour, and that was a key consideration in her asking Mr. Shinkaruk to leave. These communication problems are issues which, she testified, they have both done a lot of work on recently and now that they are seeing each other again, there is a greater deal of emotional maturity being exhibited by both of them.

[60] It appears from the evidence that the most that could be said is that the motor vehicle accident contributed to the breakup in that it created a living situation, with Mr. Shinkaruk at home convalescing, in which fundamental and deep-seated issues between this couple became manifest. To the extent that Mr. Shinkaruk may have suffered emotionally or psychologically due to their breakup in December 2006, the defendant’s negligence is too remote to create liability.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, assessing fault and damages stemming from a 2006 motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Power v. Carswell) the Plaintiff was involved in a two vehicle collision in Kamloops, BC.   The Defendant blew a red light while attempting a left hand turn and collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Although he denied liability the Court found him fully at fault.

The Plaintiff suffered various injuries in this collision the most serious of which was a subligamentous disc herniation at L4-L5.

She was expected to have chronic lower back pain as a result of this injury.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $70,000 Madam Justice Gray provided the following reasons:

[178] Ms. Power suffered moderate soft tissue injuries to her chest, left neck, left shoulder, and lower back in the Accident. The Accident caused a subligamentous disc herniation at L4-L5 which has caused her significant pain in her lower back. Despite painful treatment by cortisone injections into her hips and epidurally, her pain persists.

[179] Ms. Power now experiences hip and lower back pain which limits her ability to sit, stand, walk, and bend. She also experiences shoulder pain which limits her ability to hold her hands near or above shoulder level. As a result of these limitations, she can no longer work as a hairstyling teacher. Ms. Power made significant efforts following the Accident to continue in that line of work, but even with significant modifications, she was not able to do so on a prolonged basis. She has made the reasonable decision to pursue a different career which will more likely suit her physical capacity.

[180] As a result of her injuries, Ms. Power is also less able to care for herself and her family. For example, she has difficulty styling her own hair and doing laundry and other chores.

[181] As a further result of her injuries, Ms. Power suffers pain and is less able to enjoy recreational activities. For example, she is less able to go on long walks, to dance, and to sit for long drives or movies…

[188] In all the circumstances, an appropriate award for Ms. Power’s non-pecuniary losses is $70,000.

(Image via Wikipedia)

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for injuries caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Ng v. Sarkaria) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  The Defendant admitted fault for the crash.  The 31 year old Plaintiff suffered “a large focal disc protrusion at L4-5 and a less significant protrusion at L5-S1“.  As a result the Plaintiff went on to have a partial discectomy.

In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $95,000 Mr. Justice Butler provided the following reasons:

[43] In summary, Mr. Ng has been left with a limitation in the amount of activities he can do.  He has also suffered some restriction in the nature of the activities he can do because he is focused on staying healthy.  He is determined to continue his work as a TFR.  He is not disabled by pain and there is no suggestion that he suffers from chronic pain.  Rather, he has episodic pain when he overexerts himself…

[46] I have found the decisions referred to by the plaintiff to be helpful to my decision.  Of course, each assessment depends on the unique facts of the case.  Here, Mr. Ng’s injury was significant; however, he has had a very positive result from the surgery.  He continues to be able to do all of the activities of his job.  His income has increased to a level greater than it was before the accident.  He must be careful to avoid excessive stress on his back and must carefully balance his work and home life.  However, when I compare his situation to that of the plaintiffs in the cases he relies upon, he is in a better position because he does not experience ongoing chronic pain and is able to continue to carry out most of the activities he could before the accident.  However, I must also take into account the possibility that he will not be able to continue to perform at his current level as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident.  There is a possibility that his pain and restriction of activities will increase in the future.

[47] When I take all of these factors into account, I conclude that the appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $95,000.

Prior to reaching this decision the Court heard from competing medical evidence about the connection between the collision to the disc protrusions.  The physician retained by the defence (Dr. Dommisse) provided evidence minimizing this connection arguing the injury was perhaps more likely connected to a work related incident.  In rejecting this opinion Mr. Justice Butler provided the following criticism:

[30] The defence was critical of Dr. Aitken’s alleged failure to fully inquire into the work activities undertaken by Mr. Ng after he went back to work.  However, I am of the view that it is Dr. Dommisse who can be criticized for failing to back up his opinion by pointing to evidence that would connect the Herniations to a particular injury or incident at work.  All of the doctors were aware in general terms of the nature of Mr. Ng’s work.  They all agreed that it is possible for such work to cause a tortional injury to the spine.  However, there was no evidence that Mr. Ng suffered such an injury or insult at work between June 2008 and November 2008.  Indeed, he deliberately avoided the more onerous work tasks including those jobs requiring the use of the large ladder.  He does not recall using the ladder in that timeframe.  During much of that period he was off work, on light duties or avoiding heavy tasks.  The evidence established that there was only one significant injury or insult to Mr. Ng’s spine:  the injury that was suffered in the accident.

In my ongoing effort to create a searchable UMP Claims database, I summarize a 2009 UMP Decision dealing with an assessment of damages for serious injuries, including a partial spinal cord injury leading to temporary paralysis, following a head on crash.

In the 2009 decision (EH v. ICBC) the 10 year old Claimant sustained serious injuries when she was involved in a head-on collision on the Malahat Highway.  The Claimant’s injuries were severe and her right leg was completely paralyzed following the collision.  She fortunately went on to make an “excellent” recovery, however was expected to suffer from long term problems as a result of her injuries.

The at-fault driver was an “underinsured” motorist and the parties agreed to have the quantum of the claim assessed via UMP arbitration.  Arbitrator Yule assessed the Claimant’s non-pecuniary damages at $140,000 and in doing so provided the following reasons:

76.  At age 10 the Claimant sustained serious, multiple injuries in the Accident.  The three most serious injuries were:

a.  A Brown-Sequard partial cervical spinal cord injury

b.  Bony cervical spine injuries including compression fractures at C-7, T-1 amd T-2, facet subluxation at C-7 - T-1 and avulsion of the C-7 spinous process; and

c.  an anterior tibial spine avulsion injury in her right knee (anterior cruciate ligament avulsion and grade 2 medial collateral ligament strain)

77.  At the outset, her right leg was completely paralyzed.  She:

a.  spent 50 days in three different hospitals

b.  experienced neuropathic pain (excruciating pain to mere touch) for 20 days;

c.  required her neck immobilized in sandbags when in bed;

d.  at all other times wore a Minerva brace for 60 days;

e.  wore an extreme right knee brace for 75 days; and

f.  wore a plastic boot on her right foot for foot drop for approximately 5 weeks.

As of August, 2006, approximately five months post-accident she:

a.  had received 70 physiotherapy treatments; and

b.  40 occupational therapy treatments.

The Accident and the acute treatment phase was a wholly frightening experience for a young child.  For par of her hospitalization she was in isolation.

78.  The Claimant sustained a number of permanent disabilities as follows:

a.  right leg limp

b.  weakness, fatigue and reduced endurance in the right leg;

c.  loss of sensitivity of the left leg exposing her to the risk of burns or frostbite

…

87.  …having in mind the Claimant’s initial complete right leg paraplegia, the extreme neuropathic pain which lasted for 20 days, the significant permanent restrictions resulting from weakness, fatigue and decreased endurance of the right leg, the impending surgical repair of right knee ligament damage and the early onset of symptomatic degenerative spinal arthritis I assess damages at $140,000.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with fault for a collision involving a jaywalking pedestrian.

In last week’s case (Wong-Lai v. Ong) the elderly Plaintiff and her husband where involved in a serious collision in 2009.  It was a dark and rainy Vancouver Autumn evening.  As they crossed the street to return to their car they were struck by a vehicle driven by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff was not in a marked cross-walk at the time.  Her husband died and the Plaintiff suffered severe injuries.

The Court found that while the Plaintiff was jay-walking she should have been visible to the Driver.  The Court found that the driver was not paying sufficient attention and assessed him 25% at fault.  In reaching this conclusion Mr. Justice Sewell provided the following reasons:

[56] I have concluded that Mr. Ong must bear some of the legal responsibility for the accident.  The law is well-settled that a driver of a vehicle owes a duty to keep a proper lookout and to avoid exercising his or her right of way in the face of danger of which he or she was or ought to have been aware.  In some cases the expression used is that that person must avoid dangers of which he or she was aware or which were reasonably apparent.  I do not think that the defendant in this case can avoid liability merely because he did not see Ms. Lai before impact.  The critical question is whether he ought to have seen her or, in other words, whether her presence was reasonably apparent at a point when Mr. Ong could have taken steps to avoid running her down.

[57] Drivers of motor vehicles are not to be held to a standard of perfection.  However I do not think that the possibility that persons may be crossing a highway at a point other than a crosswalk or intersection is so remote that a driver has no duty to take it into account in keeping a lookout.  The evidence in this case persuades me that Mr. Ong was not keeping a proper lookout immediately prior to the accident.  His own evidence is that he was not looking forward.  While it is perfectly permissible and prudent for a driver who is changing lanes to do a shoulder check I think it is also incumbent on such a driver to take the steps necessary to ensure that it is safe for him to do so.

[58] I have also concluded that Mr. Ong was probably concentrating on the manoeuvre of changing lanes and on the parked car in front of him to the exclusion of keeping a proper lookout.  I therefore find that Mr. Ong was negligent and that the defendants must bear some portion of the liability for Ms. Lai’s injuries…

[64] In all of the circumstances I find that Ms. Lai is 75% liable for the accident that occurred and Mr. Ong 25%.  Ms. Lai is therefore entitled to recover 25% of the damages she suffered as a result of this tragic accident.

The Plaintiff’s damages were assessed at just over $307,000.  $200,000 of this assessment were for the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss.  In arriving at this figure Mr. Justice Sewell provided the following summary of the Plaintiff’s injuries:

[65] In this case Ms. Lai suffered very grievous injuries. She was struck by a car which I have found to be travelling at close to 60 kilometres per hour.  A good summary of her injuries is found in the report of Dr. Ng.  It is as follows:

1) Gross bleeding from urine requiring emergency urological consultation. A CT cystogram ruled out bladder rupture. Ct scans of the kidneys did not show any severe renal damage and she only required observation and support. However angiogram showed the pelvic fractures has ruptured blood vessels and she had bleeding in the blood supply to the pubic bone and these required embolisation to stop the bleeding.

2] Cervical Cl C2 unstable fracture. This required immobilisation and stabilisation in a collar and traction for the first eight weeks. She also has a moderate central cervical disc protrusion at level C6-7 which indented her cervical spinal cord.

3] Chest contusions left upper lobe, right middle lobe, and multiple rib fractures of the left 3 to 6 ribs and left 8 rib.

4) Multiple pelvic comminuted fractures bilaterally, namely superior and inferior pubic rami. She required immobilisation for her neck and leg fractures as well as for these fractures for the first eight weeks. She remained in the intensive care unit for a few weeks for treatment and stabilisation of all her injuries.

5) The left Tibial and left Fibular fractures require manual reduction and internal fixations on December 1, 2009. She returned to the intensive care unit post operatively.

6) Brain injury, which on CT scan showed multiple bleeding present inside areas of her brain and a small subdural hematoma (within the skull but outside the brain), located in between the cerebral hemispheres. There is a large left scalp hematoma. Her conscious levels and neurological state were monitored in intensive care over the next few weeks

…

[83] In my view the most important factors in this case are the severe and painful injuries suffered by Ms. Lai, the marked degree of permanent disability, the loss of independence and the increased risk of morbidity and mortality identified in Dr. Guy’s opinion.  I also note that Ms. Lai’s stoicism and determination to make the best of her predicament should not diminish the amount of damages awarded to her.

[84] I have reviewed the numerous decisions on pecuniary damages involving serious injuries cited to me by counsel.  These cases are all of course fact specific.  My review of them, coupled with a consideration of the principles restated in Stapley, leads me to conclude that an award of non pecuniary damages in the amount of $200,000 is appropriate in this case.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, awarding global damages of just over $90,000 as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision.

In this week’s case (Lorenz v. Gosling) the Plaintiff was injured in 2006 collision.  Fault was admitted.  The Plaintiff’s symptoms included chronic neuropathic pain which was brought on following the collision as a result of “severe narrowing of the cord due to degeneration of the disc and facet joints at the C3-4 level of her cervical spine“.

The 56 year old plaintiff was left with chronic pain and limitations in her vocational and domestic responsibilities.   The Plaintiff was able to continue working despite her pain and nothing was awarded for diminished earning capacity.  Despite this her non-pecuniary damages were assessed at $80,000 with Mr. Justice Verhoeven providing the following reasons:

[30] Dr. Berkman’s opinion was that Mrs. Lorenz was suffering from persistent pain and weakness in her arms, and neck pain, resulting from the accident.  He says that she suffered a “significant injury to her spinal cord at the C3-4 level, with consequential development of neuropathic pain in her neck and upper limbs.”

[31] Dr. Berkman defined “neuropathic” as meaning a change in the perception of pain, and change in the processing of pain by the patient. In his opinion the pain had become “ingrained in her nervous system”.

[32] He suggested pain education, psychological support and occupational therapy.

[33] Dr. Berkman also suggested a consultation with a neurosurgeon in order to consider the advisability of surgery.  In the absence of neurosurgery, he suggested treatment such as Botox or subcutaneous Lidocaine, or a spinal cord stimulator…

[42] On the medical evidence, therefore, I am left with a substantial lack of clarity as to whether the complaints of Mrs. Lorenz are essentially permanent.  Nonetheless, I am obliged to make findings on the evidence as it is.  I conclude that there is a substantial risk that she will not experience a significant improvement in her present symptoms and complaints.  I am unable to find that this is a probable outcome.

[43] There is no question in this case that her complaints arise from the motor vehicle accident…

[97] After considering all of the authorities cited to me, and on the findings that I have made, I consider that the sum of $80,000 represents a fit and proper award for non pecuniary loss in this case.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages following a 2005 motor vehicle collision.

In this week’s case (X v. Y) the Plaintiff was an RCMP officer.  (Supplemental reasons were released permitting the Plaintiff to identify himself by initials and to seal the Court file given the Plaintiff’s undercover work).  He was responding to an emergency call.  He was travelling on his motorcycle when he was struck by a truck driven by the Defendant who was in the course of making a U-turn.  Although fault was put at issue the Court found the defendant fully liable for the collision.

The Plaintiff suffered a burst fracture at the T-12 level which required surgical intervention.  He suffered from chronic pain following this and although he was able to return to police work he could only do so in a more administrative (as opposed to front-line) capacity.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $140,000 Madam Justice Dardi provided the following reasons:

[101] The plaintiff underwent surgery on July 21, 2005, after which Dr. D. explained to the plaintiff that he had a burst fracture in his vertebrae in the thoracolumbar region, and that metal rods, clamps and screws had been placed in the area to fuse the spine together. The plaintiff was fitted with a clamshell brace in order to stabilize his fused spine and prevent him from moving. He was not allowed to sit or stand up unless he was wearing this brace. He used a walker to manoeuvre around the hospital. After physiotherapy treatments, he was able to walk short distances, go to the bathroom, and get in and out of his hospital bed. He was released from the hospital on July 27, 2005…

[147] It is uncontroversial that the plaintiff suffered a serious injury in the accident: a fractured spine which required surgical fusion with metal instrumentation. The medical evidence clearly establishes that he is permanently disabled insofar as repetitive heavy bending, lifting and high-impact activities. He has an increased risk for the development or acceleration of degenerative disc disease and is at an increased susceptibility for reinjuring his back…

[163] In summary on this issue, I find that the plaintiff’s symptoms are genuine. He regularly experiences varying degrees of pain and significant stiffness, tightness, and spasms in his back. The cold exacerbates his symptoms. He will continue to experience episodic aggravation of his symptoms. He is at an increased risk of developing degenerative arthritis and he has an increased susceptibility for further injury to his back. He also faces the possibility of another surgery to remove the hardware in his back. He has reduced stamina and tires much more easily than prior to the collision. I also conclude that as the plaintiff ages, there is a substantial likelihood that his pain and discomfort will increase because he will not be able to maintain the same level of conditioning in the muscles supporting the fused area of his back.

[164] In terms of his career, the preponderance of the evidence clearly supports a finding that the plaintiff is not fit to perform the full range of policing duties. He must avoid impact activities and any risk of physical altercations with suspects, which restricts him from participation in front-line policing duties. He can no longer perform the duties of a motorcycle officer, nor is he able to pursue his ambition to join the ERT as an operational member…

[179] While the authorities are instructive, I do not propose to review them in detail, as each case turns on its own unique facts. Having reviewed all of the authorities provided by both counsel, and in considering the plaintiff’s particular circumstances, I conclude a fair and reasonable award for non-pecuniary damages is $140,000.

When the New Rules of Court were introduced last year changes were made to the timelines to exchange expert reports.  An 84 day deadline was set out in Rule 11-6(3) and a shorter 42 day deadline is set out in Rule 11-6(4) for “responding reports“.   The first reasons for judgement that I’m aware of were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing whether to admit a late report under the “responsive evidence” exception.

In today’s case (Crane v. Lee) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 motor vehicle collision.  The Defendant ran a stop sign and admitted fault for the crash.   The Plaintiff’s expert provided evidence that she suffered from soft tissue injuries and a herniated disc.  The Defendant obtained an expert report which contradicted this finding and served this report less than 84 days before trial.  The Defendant argued that the report was responsive and should be admitted.  Mr. Justice Smith disagreed finding the report went beyond the narrow circumstances permitted in Rule 11-6(4).  In excluding the report the Court provided the following reasons:

[21] At the opening of the trial, counsel for the plaintiff objected to and sought a ruling on the admissibility of a medical report that the defendant intended to rely upon.  The report had not been served within the 84 days required by Rule 11-6 (3) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009.  Counsel for the defendant relied upon rule 11-6 (4), which reads:

(4)        Unless the court otherwise orders, if a party intends to tender an expert’s report at trial to respond to an expert witness whose report is served under subrule (3), the party must serve on every party of record, at least 42 days before the scheduled trial date,

(a)        the responding report, and

(b)        notice that the responding report is being served under this rule.

[22] Rule 11-6 (4) is intended to apply only to evidence that is truly responsive or in rebuttal to specific opinion evidence tendered by the opposite party.  It is not intended to provide defendants with a general exemption from the basic time limit for serving expert reports that is set out in Rule 11-6 (3).  Defendants who delay obtaining or serving expert evidence until after the plaintiff’s opinions have been received, then attempt to introduce all of their expert evidence as response, do so at their peril.

[23] In this case, I found that the report was not limited to true responsive evidence.  It stated the author’s opinion on the nature and cause of the plaintiff’s injury−the central issue that both sides had to address from the outset−and was based upon a review of all the medical records, including some not referred to by Dr. Field in his report.  As such, I considered it to be a free-standing medical opinion that ought to have been served pursuant to Rule 11-6 (3).  I ruled the report inadmissible, with the result that there was no expert evidence before me to contradict Dr. Field’s opinion.

The Court accepted the evidence from the Plaintiff’s expert and in assessing non-pecuniary damages of $100,000 Mr. Justice Smith provided the following reasons:

[33] On review of all the evidence, I find that the accident for which the defendant has admitted liability caused soft tissue injuries to the plaintiff’s neck and upper back, which eventually resolved, and a herniated disc in the lower back that continues to cause pain and limitation.  To the extent that the accident may have aggravated a pre-existing condition, I find that in the years immediately preceding the accident that condition was minimally symptomatic and there is no evidence that it would likely have become worse but for the accident.  I accept the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Field that the plaintiff’s current pain is likely to be permanent…

[45] The injury the plaintiff suffered has had a significant impact on her enjoyment of life.  She has back pain on a daily basis, fluctuating according to her activities.  She has lost what was formerly a very active lifestyle, giving up some activities that she formerly enjoyed, while continuing some others on a reduced level, accepting the trade-off of increased pain.  The only medical evidence before me is that this condition is likely to be permanent. She also suffers severe anxiety while driving, particularly in situations similar to those that gave rise to the accident, although there is no evidence that this condition is necessarily permanent…

[49] Taking into account the effect of the plaintiff’s injuries on her lifestyle, the permanent nature of her pain and the psychological impact, including her driving anxiety, and considering the cases cited, I assess the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $100,000.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for serious injuries following a BC motor vehicle collision.

In this week’s case (Bouchard v. Brown Bros. Motor Lease Canada Ltd.) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 rear-end collision.  He was faced in an awkward position when his vehicle was struck and he sustained injuries.  Fault for the crash was admitted focussing the trial on assessing damages.

Although there was competing medical evidence, the Court ultimately found the collision was a cause of a L4-5 disc herniation which required bilateral discectomies and foraminotimies at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels of the spine.

The Plaintiff’s symptoms of pain continued and he ultimately was diagnosed with a chronic pain syndrome.  The Court accepted that the Plaintiff would likely not work in his profession again.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $160,000 Mr. Justice Pearlman provided the following comments:

[117]     I find that the motor vehicle accident was a significant factor contributing to the herniation of the plaintiff’s disc at L4-L5, and the development of the plaintiff’s symptoms of severe and disabling lower back pain, and that there is a substantial connection between Mr. Bouchard’s low back injuries and the motor vehicle accident….

[155]     The assessment of non-pecuniary damages depends upon the particular circumstances of the plaintiff in each case. The factors that the court must consider include the plaintiff’s age, the nature of his injury, the severity and duration of pain, disability, emotional suffering, impairment of marital and social relationships, impairment of physical and mental abilities, and loss of lifestyle:Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 at para. 46, leave to appeal ref’d 2006 CarswellBC 2598 (S.C.C.). Here, I find that the appropriate award for Mr. Bouchard in all of the circumstances is $160,000.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of causation and indivisible injuries set out at paragraphs 97-117 of the reasons for judgement.  The Court found that while the collision was a cause of the injury, that there was “a very significant risk” that the Plaintiff’s back problems would have developed even absent the collision and the damages were reduced by 40% to take this risk into account.

Lastly, this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of the adverse inference principle.  Following the Plaintiff’s surgery the Plaintiff obtained and exchanged copies of the relevant medical records.  The Plaintiff called various expert witnesses to support the case but the treating surgeon was not called.  The Defence asked the Court to draw an adverse inference.  Mr. Justice Pearlman refused to do so and provided the following helpful reasons:

[121] Here, there has been full disclosure of Dr. Heran’s consultation reports and his operative procedure report. Those records were available to the defendant when Dr. Hepburn prepared his second report of October 27, 2009. It was open to the defendants to interview and call Dr. Heran if they chose to do so. Furthermore, in my view, Dr. Hunt, whose practice is devoted to the treatment of patients with chronic pain, and who was directly involved in the ongoing testing, management, and treatment of the plaintiff’s symptoms from October 2008 through May 2010, was in a better position than Dr. Heran to provide an opinion on the extent of the plaintiff’s disability and his requirements for future care. Finally, I also take into account the explanation of counsel for the plaintiff that obtaining an expert report from Dr. Heran would have put Mr. Bouchard to additional expense, and would have involved yet another review of all of the reports and clinical records of those doctors who did testify at trial. For all of these reasons, I decline to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff.

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, assessing damges for non-pecuniary loss (pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) for an L4-5 disk herniation.

In yesterday’s case (Doho v. Melnikova) the Plaintiff was involved in two seperate collisions.  Fault was admitted in both actions leaving the Court to assess damages.  The first collision caused a disk injury at the 4-5 level of the Plaintiff’s lower spine.  The second collision resulted in a minor aggravation of this.

The prognosis for recovery was poor and the Plaintiff was expected to experience ongoing pain and discomfort in his lower back as a result of the first collision.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $80,000 for the first collision Mr. Justice Rogers provided the following reasons:

[38] The first accident caused a significant injury to Mr. Doho’s lower back. He sustained a disk hernia at the L4-5 level of his spine. That hernia impinged on his spinal nerves and caused him severe pain for the first three or four months after the accident. He also suffered from headaches and a sore neck. Those latter symptoms resolved by three months after the accident. Mr. Doho’s leg pains dissipated by approximately four months after the accident, but he was left with ongoing low back discomfort. His pain is increased by lifting, playing sports such as golf, standing or sitting for lengthy periods of time. Because surgery is not an option at this point, I have concluded that Mr. Doho’s condition is permanent.

[39] I find that Mr. Doho’s non-pecuniary damages arising out of the November 2006 accident should be assessed at $80,000.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of the principle of ‘failure to mitigate‘ at 49-53.