ICBC’s LVI Defence Rejected Yet Again
I’ve written about this topic too many times to give a lengthy introduction other than to say it is clear that the “Low Velocity Impact” Defence is not a legal principle. Â Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, yet again demonstrating this.
In today’s case (Cariglino v. Okuda) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 collision. Â She was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended. Â Fault was admitted. Â She sufferedÂ variousÂ soft tissue injuries. Â The vehicle sustained $724 in damage and the Defendant advanced the classic LVI defence arguing that this little damage “indicates the relatively minor nature of the collision and the likelihood that the complaints of injury and loss made by the plaintiff are either not related to this collision or are embellished.”.
Mr. Justice McKinnon rejected this argument and in doing so provided the following comments:
 No medical opinions were proffered by the defence, rather defence submitted that the plaintiffâ€™s evidence is â€śunreliableâ€ť as she downplays the role of significant family stressors in her life, fixating on the collision as the sole cause of all of her problems, both before and after the collision. Curiously, defence accepts that the plaintiff is credible but not reliable. That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.
 I found the plaintiff to be generally credible and, for the most part, a reliable historian. Certainly she had stresses in her life that created difficulties but she was able to manage these much more easily before the collision. A defendant takes a plaintiff as he finds her. Here the defendant has caused injury to the plaintiff who was in a somewhat fragile state, given her many family issues.
 The defendant contends that the very minor nature of the collision would render â€śimprobableâ€ť the nature and extent of the injuries the plaintiff contends she suffers. I was not provided with opinion evidence to support that contention and thus am unable to accept the bald proposition that minor damage equals minor injury.
The Court accepted that the Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries which largely improved in the first year following the crash and withÂ furtherÂ therapy should fully recover. Â Non-Pecuniary damages were assessed at $35,000.