BC Injury Law and ICBC Claims Blog

Cross Examination Beats Up RCMP Officer's Injury Claim

As previously discussed, cross examination is one of the most important tools in a trial lawyer’s arsenal. ¬†This tool can be used both during examination for discovery and trial. ¬†Cross examination can be used to explore and weaken an opponents case. ¬†Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, harshly criticizing an RCMP officer and largely rejecting his injury claim based on evidence elicited during an extensive cross examination.

In today’s case (Lee v. Jarvie) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision in 2004. ¬†Fault for the crash was admitted. ¬†The trial focused on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim. ¬†The Plaintiff was in the midst of applying for the RCMP at the time of the crash. ¬†He was injured but fortunately was able to complete his application and training and went on to be successfully employed with the police force.

ICBC accepted that the Plaintiff was injured but argued that his injury claim was exaggerated challenging “the authenticity of (the Plaintiff’s) claim“. ¬†Mr. Justice Gaul largely accepted this argument and dismissed a significant portion¬†of the claim. ¬†The below are some of the critical words the Court had of the Plaintiff:

[46] Mr.¬†Lee was vigorously cross-examined by counsel for the defendants. By ‚Äúvigorous‚ÄĚ I do not mean the questioning was improper or disrespectful of the witness. I¬†find the extensive cross-examination of Mr. Lee successfully revealed a number of significant and illuminating facts that, but for their disclosure, the court would have been left with an inaccurate impression and understanding of Mr.¬†Lee‚Äôs situation and condition…

[71] In addition to eliciting important facts that have placed Mr.¬†Lee‚Äôs claim in a more fulsome context, counsel for the defendants was also able to expose a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in Mr.¬†Lee‚Äôs evidence, of which I will address but a few…

[81] While I am hesitant to find Mr. Lee fabricated his evidence on this point, I do find him to be an unreliable and inaccurate historian with respect to the amount and frequency of medication he has been taking…

[86] In great measure I agree with the submission of the defence that Mr.¬†Lee‚Äôs evidence shifted during the course of his testimony and at times contradicted what he had said previously at his examination for discovery. On occasion I also found myself simply disbelieving Mr.¬†Lee….(some of his evidence) stretches the boundaries of belief beyond their limits…

[87] In general, I found Mr.¬†Lee to be less than forthright during his evidence and on more than one occasion I found him to be deliberately evasive in answering the question asked of him…

[89] It was only on account of detailed and probing cross-examination that a number of important and salient facts relating to Mr. Lee’s claim were disclosed or clarified. These details placed Mr. Lee’s claim in a markedly different light to the one based solely on what he said in his examination-in-chief. This, in conjunction with the inconsistencies or contradictions that were exposed in Mr. Lee’s evidence, compels me to approach his evidence with caution and scepticism. In general, I am not satisfied with Mr. Lee’s evidence. Unless I have indicated otherwise in these reasons, where there is a conflict between Mr. Lee’s evidence and that of another witness, I have given greater weight to the evidence of the other witness.

Further to my previous posts on credibility, cases such as today’s are worth reviewing in full to get a sense of the types of factors trial judges take into consideration in weighing the evidence of a party. ¬†Today’s case in particular is a good introduction to cross examination in¬†injury¬†claims because the Court reproduces extensive portions of the Plaintiff’s cross¬†examination¬†and explains the damaging effect this had on his credibility.

If you found this article useful please share with others:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

 

This site is created by MacIsaac & Company, a British Columbia Personal Injury Lawfirm. This website is not affiliated in any way with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC).This web site is made possible through funding provided by the British Columbia law firm MacIsaac and Company. bc-injury-law.com is designed to empower individuals to better understand their ICBC Claim and the process involved in dealing with ICBC. This web site is offered for information only and is not claim-specific legal advice. Use of the site and sending or receiving information through it does not establish a solicitor / client relationship. Links to and from this website do not state or imply a relationship between MacIsaac and Company and the linked entity.

Copyright © 2008 The MacIsaac Group of Law Firms. All rights reserved.
Web Site Design by Sage Internet Solutions Ltd.