ICBC Law

Adding to this site’s archived posts of BC non-pecuniary damage assessments for chronic headaches, reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing this topic.

In last week’s case (Fell v. Morton) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted by the rear motorist.  The Plaintiff suffered from pre-existing neck and upper back pain along with “headaches that were brought on by exertion“.  Following the crash she suffered soft tissue injuries to these regions along with a recurrence of frequent migraine headaches.   These aggravated symptoms continued to the time of trial and the prognosis for full recovery was poor.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $65,000 Madam Justice Fenlon provided the following reasons:

[23] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that Ms. Fell suffered soft tissue injuries to her upper neck and back as a result of the accident. I further find that those injuries triggered a recurrence of migraine headaches that had been almost entirely in remission since the birth of her first son.

[24] The migraines initially occurred twice per week, gradually decreasing to about once or twice each month by the time of trial. Ms. Fell’s headaches are debilitating, involving nausea and extreme sensitivity to light and sound. They sometimes last for two or three days, and all Ms. Fell can do is lie in a darkened room. She could not attend her wedding reception in Mexico in April 2010 because of a migraine headache…

[28] I find that prior to the accident Ms. Fell tended to suffer regularly from neck and upper back pain and headaches that were brought on by exertion. She sought regular massage therapy and chiropractic treatment in relation to those symptoms. She also had a proclivity to develop migraine headaches, and that condition meant she was susceptible to something else triggering her headaches in future.

[29] Ms. Fell should not be compensated for her pre‑existing condition or the potential for it to reoccur quite apart from the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident…

[38] Ms. Fell is a stoic individual whose attitude in the face of life’s difficulties is to get on with it, in her words, “to suck it up”. She should not receive a lower award of non-pecuniary damages because of that stoicism. Indeed, to the contrary, it is appropriate to include under this head the suffering she endured while she pushed herself to keep working after the accident, despite her injuries.

[39] In summary, the injuries from the accident have affected all areas of Ms. Fell’s life. While she has periods of time when she is unaffected by her injuries, in particular when she avoids exertion, she has curtailed her recreational activities, no longer camping, exercising at the same level, or taking her dogs for on-leash walks with her husband. She has found it difficult to pick up her children and cannot interact with them when she has a migraine. However, as I have earlier noted, I must also take into account her pre‑existing condition and proclivity to develop migraine headaches.

[40] Taking all of these considerations into account, I set non-pecuniary damages at $65,000.

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing whether the failure to follow through with steroid injections to treat a shoulder injury should result in mitigation of damages in a personal injury claim.

In the recent case (Lim v. Anderson) the Plaintiff suffered an impingement syndrome following a rotator cuff injury sustained in a collision.  In the course of recovery she had a steroid injection which provided temporary relief.  Her surgeon suggested that the Plaintiff could have further injections although she chose not to follow through with this advice.  The Defendant argued the Plaintiff’s damages should be reduced due to this choice.  Madam Justice Fenlon rejected this argument and provided the following reasons:

[18] A preliminary issue I must decide before assessing damages is whether the plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. The defendants must prove that the plaintiff failed to follow recommended treatment by a qualified practitioner that could have overcome or reduced her current or future problems: Papineau v. Dorman, 2008 BCSC 1443. The applicable standard is reasonableness. The defendants must demonstrate that the plaintiff unreasonably refused to follow the practitioner’s recommendations…

[23] Here too, while Dr. Yu listed further injections or surgery as possible further treatments, he did not opine that they would fix the plaintiff’s problems with her shoulders. The injections offered at least temporary relief. The first and only one the plaintiff underwent gave her two months without pain. The plaintiff described the pain relief as “like a miracle”.

[24] It can be implied from the location of the space into which the steroid medication has to be injected, from Dr. Yu’s evidence and from Ms. Lim’s decision not to repeat it every two months despite the relief that followed, that the needle itself is unpleasant. Further, Dr. Yu acknowledged that injections are not always successful and that patients have to balance the pain of the injection against the pain without it. Surgery carries with it risks and time off work.

[25] A plaintiff is only required to do what is reasonable, and I do not find to be unreasonable Ms. Lim’s decision to decline further injections and surgery and to instead use pain medication to control her symptoms.

This judgement can be contrasted with this 2010 decision where a Plaintiff’s damages were reduced by 30% for choosing to follow naturopathic treatment instead of injections/surgery to treat a shoulder injury.

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a rotator cuff injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In yesterday’s case (Lim v. Anderson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision when the Defendant ran a red light.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff suffered an impingement syndrome in her shoulder due to a rotator cuff injury caused by the crash.  She had some ongoing symptoms of pain and limitation at the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $55,000 Madam Justice Fenlon provided the following reasons:

[7] There was a difference of opinion between Dr. Christian and the plaintiff’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Yu, as to the cause of the plaintiff’s ongoing shoulder pain. Dr. Yu attributes it to calcific tendonitis caused by the soft tissue injuries. In his view, with the injury there was bruising and swelling or hemorrhage into the rotator cuff giving rise to pain or an abduction and impingement syndrome. In this condition the tendon is pinched between the under surface of the acromion and the humeral head, resulting in pain on movement…

[9] While it is not really necessary to choose between the opinions on causation, given the agreement on ongoing residual pain in the shoulder, I prefer Dr. Yu’s diagnosis…

[10] I accept his finding that the plaintiff’s response to an injection into the subacromial space of her right shoulder, (temporary relief from pain), confirmed his diagnosis…

[38] The biggest impact on Ms. Lim in terms of loss of enjoyment of life is her inability to cook using a wok, to do the vacuuming and heavy housework she used to do to keep her home in the meticulous order she enjoyed and to do her own gardening and yard work. Her co-workers describe a woman who is less cheerful than she used to be and is often sore and uncomfortable at work. She can no longer pour tea when they go for dim sum together, something she always did before the accident.

[39] There is medical evidence that suggests that the plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries may further improve with exercise over time, although the evidence supports a finding that her shoulders will not likely improve in future.

[40] Taking into account all of the Stapley factors, I find that an award of $55,000 for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life is appropriate.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for loss related to chronic pain.

In last week’s case (Zen v. Readhead) the 45 year old plaintiff was injured in a 2005 motor vehicle collision.  Fault for the crash was admitted by the Defendant.    The Defendant’s lawyer argued that the plaintiff sustained only minor injuries submitting that the plaintiff “is an opportunist who has intentionally exaggerated his pain behavior and reporting in the hope of being rewarded significant compensation.”

The Court did not take kindly to this attack and rejected the Defendant’s submission with the following criticism “There are times when a trial judge listening to submissions about the credibility of a party is left to wonder if judge and counsel have heard the same evidence. This is such a case.”

The Court went on to award the Plaintiff damages of just over 2 Million Dollars for his accident related injuries and losses.  The majority of this was related to past and future income loss.  The Plaintiff was a high functioning Vancouver businessman and his losses were assessed reflecting his pre-accident income earning capacity.

Madam Justice Fenlon assessed the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $110,000.  His injuries included low back and pelvic pain, headaches, a mood disorder, impaired sleep, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction, elbow pain and plantar fascitits.   In arriving at this figure the Court provided the following reasons:

[54]         Awards of damages in other cases provide a guideline only. I must apply the factors listed in Stapley to Mr. Zen’s particular case. Mr. Zen is now 45-years-old. He used to be an outgoing, charismatic athlete who weekly ran 40 kms, did the Grouse Grind, and took an active role in the lives of his daughters, all while working long days in the family business including most Saturdays. Today he is a different man. He is sleep-deprived and in chronic pain, which makes him irritable and prone to frustration and anger. He can no longer push himself athletically, which was a central part of his life and the way he managed stress. He has a diminished role in the lives of his daughters, and in particular his youngest daughter, Olivia. Mr. Zen’s relationship with his wife has been significantly affected and he has, in his words, “missed out on the best years of [his] life”.

[55]         Taking all of this into account and excluding from this analysis the pain and inconvenience caused by his left knee before the March 2010 surgery, I find that Mr. Zen is entitled to non-pecuniary damages of $110,000.

Further to my recent post on this topic, another case was just released by the  BC Supreme Court considering whether the Court can consider the fact that the Defendant is insured when determining what costs consequences a formal offer of settlement should have in an ICBC Claim.

In today’s case (Cridge v. Ivancic) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 car crash in Surrey, BC.  The Plaintiff sued for damages.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant and the Court was asked to value the claim.

Prior to trial the Defendants (through their ICBC appointed defence lawyer) made a formal offer to settle the case for $50,000.  The Plaintiff did not accept this offer and went to trial.  At trial the Plaintiff sought damages of over $100,000.  The claim was largely unsuccessful with the Court awarding just over $12,000 in total damages.

The Defendants brought a motion seeking that the Plaintiff pay their costs from the point of trial onward.   The Court held that it was not unreasonable for the Plaintiff to reject the formal offer until the week before trial.  As a result the Court awarded the Plaintiff her costs until that stage and the Defendants their costs from that time on.  The result was the costs cancelled each other out.  While there is nothing noteworthy about this result, the decision is worth reviewing because it is yet another precedent discussing whether insurance is a relevant consideration under Rule 37B.  Madam Justice Fenlon held that the existence of insurance is a fair consideration stating as follows:

[14] Under R. 37B(6)(c), another consideration is “the relative financial circumstances of the parties”. The defendants were represented by ICBC. The plaintiff was unrepresented; she is a retired accountant in her 70s, and appears to be of limited means, working only part-time each spring during tax season.

[15] There is conflicting case law on the issue of whether a defendant’s insurance coverage is relevant to the consideration of the financial circumstances of the parties. In Bailey v. Jang, 2008 BCSC 1372 at paras. 32-34, 90 B.C.L.R. (4th) 125 [Bailey], Hinkson J. held that the defendant’s insurance coverage should not be considered because the wording of Rule 37B(6)(c) of the Rules of Court does not invite such consideration and because an insurer is not generally a party to the litigation. Bailey has been followed on this point in various cases, including Abma v. Paul, 2009 BCSC 60 at para. 32, 66 C.P.C. (6th) 100, and A.E. v. D.W.J., 2009 BCSC 505 at para. 58, 91 B.C.L.R. (4th) 372.

[16] However, in Radke at para. 42, Boyd J. held that the fact that the defendants were represented by ICBC and “had substantially greater resources to finance a trial than the individual plaintiff” is a relevant consideration under R. 37B(6)(c). Radke was followed in Smith v. Tedford, 2009 BCSC 905, 77 C.P.C. (6th) 308, where Mr. Justice Grist stated at para. 16 that “[t]he ability to have a case advanced by experienced and well funded counsel is, to my mind, a resource that should be taken into account in exercising the judicial discretion stipulated under the new Rule.”

[17] I find Mrs. Cridge’s modest financial means and the defendants’ representation by ICBC to be a relevant consideration, although not a significant or determinative factor in my decision.

As pointed out in my last article on the topic, Rule 37B has been on the books now for almost two years.  The Court is clearly conflicted about whether the availability of insurance is a relevant factor under the rule.  When the New BC Supreme Court Rules come into force on July 1, 2010 Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9.  Rule 9 uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B so the lack of clarity will likely continue.  In light of the on-going conflicting authorities it will be useful if the BC Court of Appeal addresses this issue.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria is a Latin phrase which generally means that a plaintiff cannot sue a defendant where the Plaintiff has consented to or willingly accepted the risk of harm.   The Volenti Doctrine, when used successfully, can be a complete defence to a personal injury lawsuit.

The Volenti defence has been raised many times in ICBC Injury Claims where a passenger rides with a knowingly impaired driver who then loses control and injures the passenger.  Our Courts have severely limited the effectiveness of this defence over the years and reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating the difficulty is successfully arguing this defence.

In today’s case (Shariatmadari v. Ahmadi) the Plaintiff was severely injured when the driver of her vehicle lost control in Stanley Park, left the roadway and hit a tree.  The Defendant was drinking prior to losing control.  The claim went to Jury Trial and ICBC, on behalf of the Defendant, tried to raise the Volenti Defence.

Madam Justice Fenlon refused to put the defence to the jury finding that the evidence required for the defence to succeed was not present in the case at hand.  In coming to this conclusion she summarize the Volenti Defence in impaired driving cases and applied it as follows:

[3] The third party, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”), who is defending this case on behalf of the deceased driver, wished to lead evidence of excessive drinking by the plaintiff, defendant, and mutual friends several nights a week for some time prior to the accident. ICBC also sought to lead evidence of the plaintiff occasionally driving following such evenings or letting the defendant drive her vehicle. They argued that this evidence, in conjunction with the fact that the plaintiff and defendant had a close personal relationship and were both driving impaired before the accident, will support a finding by the jury of a tacit agreement between the parties to assume any risk that might arise in relation to such driving – a finding which would support the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

[4] Counsel for the plaintiff offered to have the plaintiff testify on a voir dire to permit counsel for ICBC to argue the appropriateness of putting the volenti defence to the jury based on the actual evidence that could be elicited from the plaintiff. The third party was of the view, with which I agreed, that they could argue the appropriateness of putting the defence ofvolenti non fit injuria to the jury based on their “best case scenario”. I heard argument on that basis.

[5] Counsel for ICBC candidly acknowledged that in cases involving a plaintiff riding with an impaired driver, volenti is a difficult defence to prove in light of recent cases on the issue. In Hall v. Hebert, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 159 at 207, 101 D.L.R. (4th) 129, Cory J. in concurring reasons noted that the maxim volenti non fit injuria “stands for the proposition that no injury is done to one who consents.”  He stated the following at 207-208:

In order for the doctrine of volenti to apply, there must be either an express or implied assumption of the risk of the activity which caused the damage. That is to say, both parties to the activity must have agreed that they would participate in it regardless of the risk of injury and give up their right to sue should injury occur as a result of the agreed upon activity. It must be observed that the consent goes to the legal as opposed to the physical risk of harm (see Lehnert v. Stein, [1963] S.C.R. 38).

…

The volenti defence acts as a complete bar to recovery. Although it has not been the subject of legislation, it has been very severely limited in its application. Perhaps the judicial limitation was well merited in light of the harsh academic criticism of the defence. See Prosser, supra, at p. 454. Before it can operate as a defence, the plaintiff must not only consent to accept the risk of harm but also must bargain away his or her right to sue for injuries that may result from the dangerous activity. The doctrine will only be applied where it can truly be said that there is an understanding on the part of both parties that the defendant assumed no responsibility to take care for the safety of the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not expect him or her to do so. Clearly, the volenti defence will only be applicable in a narrow range of cases.

[6] In Joe v. Paradis, 2008 BCCA 57, 290 D.L.R. (4th) 556, the plaintiff had persuaded the defendant to drive him to a pub to obtain beer. Both parties were heavily intoxicated and the defendant drove off the road, injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s action for damages was dismissed by a jury on the basis of the volenti defence. The issue before the British Columbia Court of Appeal was whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria should have been put to the jury. At para. 13, Mackenzie J.A. writing for the Court said:

[13]      There is no evidence of any express agreement between Mr. Joe and Mr. Paradis to absolve the latter from legal liability for negligent driving. The first issue is whether there was evidence from which a properly instructed jury could find an implied agreement to that effect. The first and third issues are inter-related: if there was no evidence to support the defence, the jury verdict is unsupported by evidence and therefore perverse.

[7] He noted further at paras. 16-22:

[16]      Commentators are generally critical of the volenti doctrine, particularly its application to passengers in motor vehicle accident cases: see, for example, G.H.L. Fridman,The Law of Torts in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2002); Allen M. Linden and Bruce Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law, 8th ed. (Markham, Ont.: Butterworths, 2002); Lewis N. Klar, Tort Law, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2003); John G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 9th ed. (Sydney: LBC Information Services, 1998); and Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 19th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006). Clerk & Lindsell on Torts points out that volenti’s complete bar to recovery is inconsistent with comparative negligence statutes which allow the apportionment of responsibility and “a more finely adjusted justice between parties” (at §3-103). Professor Klar observes that the nominal standard of an implied waiver of legal liability will rarely be met, if taken seriously. He adds: “It is not realistic to impose this implied agreement upon parties who are frequently unaware of the legal niceties surrounding these types of events, and who are not deliberating upon the physical or legal risks of dangerous conduct” (at 482). It would be hard to find parties who better fit Professor Klar’s description than Mr. Joe and Mr. Paradis.

…

[20]      Interjecting the volenti defence short circuits the process and invites the jury to use the defence as a subterfuge to assign all responsibility for the accident to Mr. Joe notwithstanding that the theoretical basis of the doctrine, an implied agreement to waive legal liability, may be unsupported by the evidence. Unless the courts are prepared to condone the manipulation of the volenti doctrine to avoid the comparative fault regime of the Negligence Act, volenti should not be invoked unless there is evidence that the parties put their minds to the question of legal liability and expressly or tacitly made an agreement to waive liability that could be supported on basic contract law principles.

[21]      The weight of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and the critical commentaries support restricting the doctrine to cases where an agreement can be supported by the evidence. This case was not one of them.

[22]      The question left with the jury failed to clearly distinguish between the physical and legal risk of harm. The judge’s charge attempted to explain the distinction, but essentially in a vacuum as to evidence supporting acceptance of the legal risk of injury in contrast to the physical risk. Voluntary acceptance of the physical risk without acceptance of the legal risk is a contributory negligence issue and not volenti. [Emphasis added]

[8] In my view, even assuming the defendant’s best case scenario on the evidence elicited at trial, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff’s waiver of her legal right to sue for injuries, as distinct from evidence to support a willingness to assume the risk of injury itself. There is no evidence that the plaintiff and defendant turned their minds to the question of legal liability, and either expressly or tacitly made an agreement to waive liability that could be supported on basic contract law principles.

[9] In conclusion on this point, there is no evidence to support the defence of volenti; therefore that defence should not be put to the jury.

The Court did, however, go on to permit the Jury to hear evidence of the Plaintiff’s level of intoxication finding that “ here the evidence establishes that the plaintiff and defendant were together drinking over the evening and consuming roughly the same number of drinks (the evidence in this case), the level of the plaintiff’s intoxication is also relevant to her awareness of how intoxicated the defendant was at the time she let him drive her car.”.  Madam Justice Fenlon held this evidence was relevant in deciding whether the Plaintiff was ‘contributorily negligent‘ for riding as a passenger with a driver who had been drinking.

Further to my numerous previous posts on Low Velocity Impacts (LVI Claims) reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court dealing with the relevance of photographs depicting minimal vehicle damage in Injury Litigation.

In today’s case (Deventer v. Woods) the Plaintiff was involved in 3 rear-end collisions.  Fault was admitted for all three crashes.   The Plaintiff claimed she was injured as a result of these crashes.  The matter was set down for a Jury Trial (ICBC normally sets LVI cases for Jury Trial) and proposed to put photos which ’show very little damage to an of the cars involved’ to the Jury.

The Plaintiff objected arguing that the photos were not relevant.  Madam Justice Fenlon disagreed with the Plaintiff and allowed the photos to be put to the Jury.  In coming to this conclusion Madam Justice Fenlon referred to and summarized 2 previous authorities dealing with this issue at paragraphs 8-13 and went on to hold as follows:

[14] In any event, I am of the view that photographs showing the extent of the damage to the vehicles in this case are relevant and therefore admissible. They are relevant because it is a matter of common sense and common understanding that the greater the force with which two vehicles collide, the more likely it is that occupants of those vehicles will be injured. The relationship between increased force and damage and increased probability of injury does not mean that parties involved in lower impact collisions that do not cause very much damage to the vehicles involved cannot suffer significant injuries. Many cases have recognized that serious injuries can result from collisions involving little or no damage, as Mr. Justice Thackray observed in Gordon.

[15] In Brar v. Johal, 2002 BCSC 150, Mr. Justice Cohen, at para. 11, held that the onus would be on the defendant to lead engineering or medical evidence to support the submission that a plaintiff’s injuries are inconsistent with the force generated by the impact between two vehicles.

[16] The relevance of photographs showing the extent of damage to the plaintiff’s and defendants’ vehicles can be tested by considering photographs of highly damaged vehicles. It would be hard to imagine plaintiff’s counsel in such a case arguing that photographs of the damage were not relevant to the issue of whether the plaintiff suffered injuries in the accident.

[17] I have considered whether the probative value of the photographs in this case is outweighed by their prejudicial effect on the jury’s assessment. For the reasons set out inMakara by Mr. Justice Barrow, I am of the view that such prejudice can be adequately addressed by way of appropriate instructions to the jury. Such directions would not simply be to ignore the photographs, as plaintiff’s counsel argued, but rather, a direction to put the pictures into the context of the evidence as a whole. The pictures are one piece of evidence about the impact and the vehicles, as is the plaintiff’s evidence.  There would also likely be a direction that the fact that no or little damage has occurred to vehicles does not mean that a plaintiff cannot be injured.

[18] In conclusion on this issue, the photographs are admissible, subject to objections about their authenticity or accuracy.

Another intresting aspect of this judgement is the Court’ discussion of the Plaintiff’s financial status.  The Defendants wished to highlight certain elements of the Plaintiff’s finances in support of an argument that  ”such information is relevant in assessing the quantum of damages for future wage loss because that information provides the context within which the jury must determine whether the plaintiff would have worked full-time in the future if the injuries sustained in the accident had not occurred.”

Madam Justice Fenlon agreed that such evidence is admissible in addressing a claim for future wage loss holding that:

[35] The plaintiff argues that the cases cited by the defendants in which a plaintiff’s financial circumstances were considered in relation to future wage loss were not jury cases. However, if the plaintiff’s financial circumstances are relevant to the assessment of future wage loss in a judge alone case, they are also relevant in a jury trial. The only additional question on a jury trial is whether the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs its probative value. The concern raised by plaintiff’s counsel, and it is a real concern, is that the jury may assume that because the plaintiff is relatively well-off she does not need to be compensated for future wage loss and they may reduce their awards for general and special damages as well. That would indeed be improper, but as I stated in relation to this issue on the admissibility of the photographs, I am of the view that the jury can be properly instructed to avoid this error and can be trusted to properly assess damages.

[36] In the circumstances of this case, I find that the probative value relating to the life insurance proceeds and the absence or existence of a mortgage outweighs the prejudicial effect of such evidence. However, I also find that the value of the new family home has such little probative value in relation to the propensity of the plaintiff to be working full-time or part-time that it is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of such evidence. I would therefore disallow that evidence.

[37] In conclusion on this issue, evidence relating to life insurance proceeds received, the payout of the mortgage on the family home at the time as a result of another life insurance policy, the existence of a current mortgage, and other evidence of that nature is admissible. Evidence regarding the value of the home the plaintiff is currently living in is not.