ICBC Law

(Update March 8, 2012 - the below reasoning was upheld by the BC Court of Appelal in reasons for judgement released today.  You can find the BC Court of Appeal’s Reasons here)

When an injury claimant attends examination for discovery or trial they are usually subjected to an extensive cross-examination with respect to matters contained in clinical records.  These records contain a host of information including dates of doctors visits, complaints made, diagnoses given, treatments recommended and the course of recovery of injuries.

Despite this volume of information clinical records do have limitations with respect to their use at trial.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing these.

In today’s case (Edmondson v. Payer) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 BC motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff sustained various soft tissue injuries involving her neck with associated headaches.  The Defendant argued that the injuries were minor and that the Plaintiff lacked credibility.  In support of their argument the Defendant relied heavily on various entries contained in the Plaintiff’s clinical records.

Mr. Justice Smith rejected the Defendant’s argument and awarded the Plaintiff $40,000 for non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffeirng and loss of enjoyment of life).  In doing so the Court provided the following useful reasons addressing the use of clinical records in injury litigation:

[23] Much of the defendant’s submission on the plaintiff’s credibility flows from what is, or is not, found in the clinical records of doctors the plaintiff has seen.  It is therefore important to review the limited purposes for which clinical records are admissible.  It is easy to lose sight of those limitations in cases of this kind, where the time spent parsing a single note made by a doctor often far exceeds the length of the medical appointment that the note records…

[34]         The difficulty with statements in clinical records is that, because they are only a brief summary or paraphrase, there is no record of anything else that may have been said and which might in some way explain, expand upon or qualify a particular doctor’s note.  The plaintiff will usually have no specific recollection of what was said and, when shown the record on cross-examination, can rarely do more than agree that he or she must have said what the doctor wrote.

[35]         Further difficulties arise when a number of clinical records made over a lengthy period are being considered.  Inconsistencies are almost inevitable because few people, when asked to describe their condition on numerous occasions, will use exactly the same words or emphasis each time.  As Parrett J. said in Burke-Pietramala v. Samad, 2004 BCSC 470, at paragraph 104:

…the reports are those of a layperson going through a traumatic and difficult time and one for which she is seeing little, if any, hope for improvement. Secondly, the histories are those recorded by different doctors who may well have had different perspectives and different perceptions of what is important. … I find little surprising in the variations of the plaintiff’s history in this case, particularly given the human tendency to reconsider, review and summarize history in light of new information.

[36]         While the content of a clinical record may be evidence for some purposes, the absence of a record is not, in itself, evidence of anything.  For example, the absence of reference to a symptom in a doctor’s notes of a particular visit cannot be the sole basis for any inference about the existence or non-existence of that symptom.  At most, it indicates only that it was not the focus of discussion on that occasion.

[37]         The same applies to a complete absence of a clinical record.  Except in severe or catastrophic cases, the injury at issue is not the only thing of consequence in the plaintiff’s life.  There certainly may be cases where a plaintiff’s description of his or her symptoms is clearly inconsistent with a failure to seek medical attention, permitting the court to draw adverse conclusions about the plaintiff’s credibility.  But a plaintiff whose condition neither deteriorates nor improves is not obliged to constantly bother busy doctors with reports that nothing has changed, particularly if the plaintiff has no reason to expect the doctors will be able to offer any new or different treatment.  Similarly, a plaintiff who seeks medical attention for unrelated conditions is not obliged to recount the history of the accident and resulting injury to a doctor who is not being asked to treat that injury and has no reason to be interested in it.

[38]         The introduction of clinical records cannot be used to circumvent the requirements governing expert opinion evidence set out in Rule 11-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/ 2009 [Rules].  A medical diagnosis−and the reasoning that led to the diagnosis−is a matter of expert opinion. Clinical records are admissible for the fact that a diagnosis was made, but the court cannot accept the diagnosis as correct in the absence of proper opinion evidence to that effect.  Depending on the facts and issues in a particular case, the mere fact that a diagnosis was made may or may not be relevant.

[39]         Clinical records may provide the assumed facts on which an expert may offer an opinion, including diagnosis.  For example, statements made by the plaintiff and recorded in clinical records at various times may be relied on by a defence expert in concluding that the plaintiff’s current symptoms are the result of a condition that pre-dated the accident.  That does not mean that the court can itself use clinical records to arrive at a medical diagnosis in the absence of expert opinion.

[40]         Some of the defendant’s submissions must now be considered in light of these principles.

If you’re involved in a BC motor vehicle collision and have your injuries treated by a “medical practitioner” ICBC can compel the medical practitioner to provide them with a report documenting your injuries.  This is so even if you are not insured with ICBC and even if you don’t consent.  Reasons for judgement were published this week on the BC Supreme Court’s website discussing this area of law.

In today’s case (Pearlman v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was involved in collision in 2004.  He was insured with a carrier from Washington State.  The other motorist was insured with ICBC.   The Plaintiff initially contacted ICBC and signed an authorization permitting ICBC to obtain medical information relating to his injuries.  About a year later the Plaintiff hired a lawyer and cancelled the authorization.  Despite this ICBC contacted a physician who treated the Plaintiff after the accident (Dr. Lubin) and requested “a narrative medical report“.

Ultimately the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the other motorist was dismissed at trial.  The Plaintiff then sued Dr. Lubin arguing that the physician breached the Plaintiff’s confidence by providing ICBC a medical report when the Plaintiff withdrew his consent for ICBC to obtain his medical information.  The Plaintiff also sued ICBC directly arguing that ICBC improperly requested the medico-legal report.  Both of these lawsuits were dismissed with the BC Supreme Court finding that whether or not ICBC has written authority, section 28 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act permits ICBC to obtain reports from treating medical practitioners and that practitioners have “no legal choice” other than to comply with such requests.

In the claim against Dr. Lubin Madam Justice Morrison stated as follows about the mandatory nature of section 28 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act:

[] Dr. Lubin was obligated to provide ICBC with the report as requested.  Dr. Lubin had no legal choice other than to comply with the mandatory request to submit a medical legal report to ICBC.  This did not amount to a breach of confidentiality as alleged by the plaintiff.

In the claim against ICBC Mr. Justice Smith found that it would be an ‘abuse of process‘ to permit the Jury in that action to make findings contrary to Madam Justice Morrison’s previous decision.  Mr. Justice Smith held as follows:

[14]         The plaintiff also sued Dr. Lubin, alleging a number of causes of action, including negligence and breach of confidence.  That action went to trial before Madam Justice Morrison and was dismissed in reasons for judgment dated March 11, 2009.  Madam Justice Morrison held that when ICBC requested the report, Dr. Lubin was obliged to provide it.  She found that obligation arose out of s. 28 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, which reads:

If any of the following persons attends to, diagnoses, treats or is consulted by a person injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, he or she must, whenever the corporation requests, provide the corporation, as soon as reasonably practicable, with a report of the injuries and their diagnosis and treatment and a prognosis, in the form the corporation prescribes …

The persons then listed include a medical practitioner….

[20] Madam Justice Morrison’s findings regarding Dr. Lubin’s conduct were made on the same or very similar evidence that is before the Court in this case, and I conclude it would indeed be an abuse of process to invite this jury to make contrary findings.

The Plaintiff appealed Madam Justice Morrison’s decision.  In the course of the Appeal the Plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the event he lost the appeal.  In reviewing this decision the BC Court of Appeal made the following comments on the matter of ICBC ordering reports not in the ‘prescribed form‘:

[19] Even if Mr. Pearlman were to succeed in his argument that the judge erred in finding that Dr. Lubin was required to provide the report under statute – I note, in that regard, that the report was not prepared in form CL 19, which is ICBC’s prescribed form under s. 28 of theInsurance (Vehicle) Act) – it is difficult to see how his appeal could succeed given the trial judge’s clear finding that Dr. Lubin did not cause him any loss.

These decisions illustrate ICBC’s power to get medical reports even absent patient consent.  It can be argued that the Court of Appeal’s comments can leave individuals with little recourse if ICBC goes further than ordering a CL-19 and in fact obtains a full medico-legal report.  A solution, at least insofar as tort claims are concerned, is for plaintiffs to bring this power to the Courts attention when ICBC insured defendants try to obtain independent medical exams in order to ‘level the playing field‘ under the BC Supreme Court Rules.

Reasons for judgement were released today addressing whether a Defendant who beat a formal settlement offer should be awarded costs.

In today’s case (Cue v. Breitkruez) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision.  He sued the rear motorist for damages.  Prior to trial the Defendant made a formal settlement offer for $1.  With liability being hotly contested the Plaintiff proposed that the case be transferred to Small Claims Court.  The Defendant refused to consent stating that “such a transfer would result in greater delay“.

At trial the Plaintiff’s case was dismissed with a finding that the Plaintiff was responsible for the collision.  (You can click here to read my summary of the trial judgement).  The Defendant then applied to be awarded double costs pursuant to Rule 9-1(5) because they beat their formal offer at trial.

Mr. Justice Smith dismissed the application noting that since Rule 14-1(10) generally restricts Plaintiff’s awarded an amount within the small claims court jurisdiction from being awarded trial costs that the Defendant should be refused costs for not agreeing to have the case heard in Provincial Court.  Specifically Mr. Justice Smith noted as follows:

7]             The matter remained in this court subject to an agreement to still limit the claim to what could be awarded in Provincial Court. Had my liability decision been different and the matter proceeded to an assessment of damages, Rule 14-1(10) would have been a bar to an award of any costs, other than disbursements, in favour of the plaintiff.  In my view, fairness requires that the same limitation apply to the successful defendant, particularly as the defendant did not agree to the proposed transfer to Provincial Court.

[8]             I therefore decline to award any costs to the defendant, other than disbursements.  There is therefore no need to consider the offer to settle because there are no costs to double.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, ordering ICBC to pay ‘double costs‘ after losing a breach of insurance claim.

In today’s case (Barsaloux v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was the owner of a vehicle that was stolen and subsequently recovered.  It was damaged beyond repair.  The Plaintiff had insurance with ICBC and applied for coverage.  ICBC refused to pay stating that the Plaintiff was in breach of his policy of insurance for making a false declaration about the identity of the vehicle’s principal operator.

The Plaintiff successfully sued ICBC and was awarded $13,850 in damages.   Prior to trial, the Plaintiff made a formal settlement offer of $13,700.  The Plaintiff applied to Court to be awarded double costs under Rule 37B.

ICBC objected arguing that the offer was made only two days before trial and therefore there was no reasonable opportunity to consider it.  Mr. Justice Smith disagreed and awarded the Plaintiff double costs.  In doing so the Court made the following useful comments about two notable issues under Rule 37B, timing of settlement offers and the financial disparity between the parties:

[17] I stress that ICBC was directly a party to this action. That distinguishes this case from Bailey v. Jang, 2008 BCSC 1372, where Hinkson J. declined to consider the relative financial positions of the plaintiff and ICBC where ICBC’s involvement was in its capacity as insurer for the named defendant.

[18]         The unequal position of the parties is not determinative because, as counsel for ICBC points out, the same situation will exist in any case where there is a coverage dispute between the corporation and a policy holder. However, I am also of the view that, in this case, ICBC used its position of strength to maintain what it should have known was an untenable, or at least an insufficiently considered, position…

[22]         In the circumstances, ICBC should have realized the weakness of its position well before trial. The offer to settle was the only means the plaintiff had to exert additional, although modest, pressure and to provide ICBC with a further opportunity to re-assess and reconsider its position in light of the evidence that existed. I find that it was an offer that ought reasonably to have been accepted.

[23]         That conclusion is not altered by the fact that the revised offer to settle was delivered only two days before trial. ICBC relies on Bailey, where the court said seven days was a reasonable period of time to consider an offer and ordered double costs for the period beginning seven days after delivery of the offer.

[24]         I do not read Bailey as stating anything more than what was a reasonable period for consideration of an offer on the facts of that case. Rule 37B sets no time limit for delivery of a settlement offer. In that regard, it differs from the former Rule 37, where an offer delivered less than seven days before trial attracted different consequences than one delivered earlier. In fact, Rule 37B(6)(a) specifically refers to an offer that ought reasonably have been accepted “either on the date that the offer to settle was delivered or on any later date” (emphasis added).

[25]         In the circumstances of this case, including the issues involved, the delivery date of the offer gave ICBC sufficient time to consider its position before trial. As said above, ICBC should have known well before the offer was delivered that it could not prove an essential part of what it was alleging. I find the plaintiff is therefore entitled to double costs for the trial of this action.

As readers of this blog are likely aware, Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 on July 1, 2010 when the new BC Civil Rules come into force. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which will likely have cases such as this one retain their value as precedents moving forward.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the issue of fault for a collision between a school bus and a cyclist.

In today’s case (Torok v. Sekhon) the Plaintiff was travelling southbound on a sidewalk in Surrey, BC.  He was travelling on the left side of the street.    At the same time the Defendant was operating a school bus and driving in the opposite direction of travel.  As the Defendant approached an intersection he put on his right turn signal and proceeded to make a right turn.  The Plaintiff, who was travelling down hill, did not yield and entered the roadway from the sidewalk.  A collision occurred.

Mr. Justice Smith was asked to determine the issue of fault.  The Court found that both parties were equally at fault for the collision.  In reaching this decision Mr. Justice Smith reasoned as follows:

[18]         The essential fact in this case is that Mr. Sekhon did see Mr. Torok and Mr. Kolba approaching the intersection at which he planned to turn. Moreover, he was driving in an area and at a time of day when the presence of children was to be expected. The duty on a driver in such a situation was recently summarized by Greyell J. in Chen v. Beltran, 2010 BCSC 302 at para. 27:

[27]      The general principle underlying any determination of fault or blameworthiness rests on a finding whether the defendant could reasonably foresee that his or her conduct would cause or contribute to the accident. When it is known there are young children in the area drivers must use extra care and attention as children do not always behave as adults would in similar circumstances. In Chohan v. Wayenberg (1990), 67 D.L.R. (4th) 318 (B.C.C.A.), the Court of Appeal stated at 319:

… There is, of course, a need for constant vigilance for children on the roads, especially in suburban areas, for the very reason that they can not be expected always to act with the same care that is expected of adults.

[19]         The plaintiff in Chen was 11 years old. The plaintiff in this case was somewhat older, but still of an age when a reasonable driver would know that he would not necessarily act “with same care that is expected of adults”. Indeed, the tendency of teenagers to engage in reckless behaviour is well known.

[20]         Having seen Mr. Torok and knowing that their paths were about to cross, the duty of Mr. Sekhon was to proceed with caution and to complete his turn only when he could do so safely. That meant either satisfying himself that he could complete his turn before the boys reached the intersection or, more prudently, slowing or stopping until he knew that the boys had either passed the intersection or had stopped to allow him to pass.

[21]         Mr. Sekhon failed to take either precaution. Although he clearly saw the boys and knew their direction of travel before his turn, he was apparently unaware of their location as he was actually making the turn. There is no evidence of anything that would have prevented Mr. Sekhon from stopping briefly in order to ensure that he could turn safely. I therefore find that, in the circumstances, Mr. Sekhon failed to take sufficient care and was negligent.

[22]         However, I find that Mr. Torok also failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. He was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk, then into a crosswalk, and was riding on the left, rather than the right side of the road. All of those actions are violations of s. 183(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318. He was also riding without a helmet, in violation of s. 184. Mr. Torok was of sufficient age and experience to know, and in fact did know, that he was riding in an illegal manner. He also knew that he was approaching an intersection at a high speed and needed to be aware of the possibility of vehicles turning either into or from 150th Street. He saw the approaching school bus and failed to notice its turn signal. As a result, I find that Mr. Torok was contributorily negligent.

[23]         In such circumstances, the apportionment of liability must be based on the degree to which each of the parties was at fault, not on the degree to which each party’s fault caused the damage:  Bradley v. Bath, 2010 BCCA 10 at para. 25. In Bradley, the Court of Appeal adopted the following passage from Fleming on The Law of Torts:

[25]      The concept of contributory negligence was described in John G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 9th ed. (Sydney: LBC Information Services, 1998) at 302, as follows:

Contributory negligence is a plaintiff’s failure to meet the standard of care to which he is required to conform for his own protection and which is a legally contributing cause, together with the defendant’s default, in bringing about his injury. The term “contributory negligence” is unfortunately not altogether free from ambiguity. In the first place, “negligence” is here used in a sense different from that which it bears in relation to a defendant’s conduct. It does not necessarily connote conduct fraught with undue risk to others, but rather failure on the part of the person injured to take reasonable care of himself in his own interest. … Secondly, the term “contributory” might misleadingly suggest that the plaintiff’s negligence, concurring with the defendant’s, must have contributed to the accident in the sense of being instrumental in bringing it about. Actually, it means nothing more than his failure to avoid getting hurt …

[Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.]

[24]         The facts of Bradley are somewhat similar to this case. There, a bicycle on the sidewalk collided with a vehicle that was coming out of a gas station. The Court of Appeal said at para. 28:

[28]      In my opinion, the plaintiff was at fault, and his fault was one of the causes of the accident. Contrary to law, he was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic. He saw the defendant’s vehicle moving towards the exit he was approaching. Rather than making eye contact with the defendant or stopping his bicycle and letting the defendant’s vehicle exit the gas station, the plaintiff assumed the defendant saw him and would not accelerate his vehicle. In these circumstances, he was at fault for continuing to ride his bicycle across the path to be taken by the defendant’s vehicle in exiting the gas station.

[25]         Although I have found that Mr. Torok, at age 14, was old enough to be found contributorily negligent, I must still consider his age in the apportionment of fault. His conduct is to be measured against what is to be expected of a reasonable person of his age and experience, not against the standard of an adult:  see Parker v. Hehr, (20 December 1993), Vancouver B914957 (B.C.S.C.), citing Ottosen v. Kasper (1986), 37 C.C.L.T. 270 (B.C.C.A.); and McEllistrum v. Etches, [1956] S.C.R. 787.

[26]         In the circumstances, I find that Mr. Torok and Mr. Sekhon were equally at fault. Each saw the other and each failed to take the necessary precautions to allow for the other’s presence and possible movements. Balancing all of the factors, including Mr. Torok’s violations of the governing statute, his age, and Mr. Sekhon’s knowledge of the nature of the area and the likely presence of young people, I cannot say that one party is more culpable than the other. I therefore find that the defendants must bear 50 per cent of the liability for the accident.

Further to my previous posts on this topic, the law is clear that a motorist who is rear-ended by another can be found at fault.  Such an outcome is somewhat unusual but given the right circumstances it can occur.  Reasons for judgement were released to today demonstrating this.

In today’s case (Cue v. Breitkreuz) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in a rear-end collision.   He testified that he was rear-ended by the Defendant while he was stopped waiting to make a left hand turn.  An independent witness contradicted this account and testified that “the Plaintiff’s car accelerated, moved in front of the (defendant’s) truck, then slammed on the brakes” leaving the defendant with “(no) chance to stop before sliding into the plaintiff’s car”.

Mr. Justice Smith preferred the independent witness’ evidence over the Plaintiff’s and found the front motorist entirely at fault.  In reaching this conclusion the Court gave the following brief but useful summary of the law:

[15] Where there has been a rear-end collision, the onus shifts to the following driver to show that he or she was not at fault:  Robbie v. King, 2003 BCSC 1553 at para. 13. It is also the case that the driver of a following vehicle must allow a sufficient distance to stop safely in the event of a sudden or unanticipated stop by the vehicles ahead:  Pryndik v. Manju, 2001 BCSC 502 at para. 21, aff’d 2002 BCCA 639; and Rai v. Fowler, 2007 BCSC 1678 at para. 30.

[16] On the evidence before me in this case, I find that the defendant has discharged the onus upon him. I find that the plaintiff, by changing lanes in the manner that he did, created the situation in which the defendant did not have a safe stopping distance behind the plaintiff’s vehicle. Had the plaintiff not stopped, the defendant would have had the opportunity to slow down and allow the distance between them to increase. But when the plaintiff stopped immediately following the lane change, the defendant had no chance to avoid the collision. The defendant had no reason, in the moments leading up to the accident, to anticipate the plaintiff’s lane change and stop.

Reasons for judgement were released today by Mr. Justice Smith of the BC Supreme Court considering the issue of fault in a collision between a pick-up truck and a motorcycle.

In today’s case (Dhah v. Harris) the Plaintiff was driving his motorcycle northbound on River Road in Delta, BC.  As he was coming into the second turn of an ’s-curve’ a pick up truck was making a U-Turn from the Southbound lane into the Northbound lane.  Approaching this truck the motorcyclist hit his brakes ‘pretty hard’, dropped his bike and then slid into the side of the pickup truck.

The driver of the pick up truck did not see the Plaintiff and only realized he was there upon impact.  Similarly the motorcyclist did not appreciate that the pick up truck was there until it was too late to avoid the collision.  There was no evidence that the motorcyclist was speeding.

Both driver’s claimed the other was at fault.  After a 3 day trial Mr. Justice Smith found the pick-up truck driver 100% at fault.  In coming to this conclusion he provided the following summary and application of the law relating to U-Turn collisions:

[22] I find it highly unlikely that the defendant was moving at the extremely slow speed that that would imply. I find it more likely that the defendant was focussed on the tightness of the turn and the need to avoid the ditch across the road and that he failed to pay sufficient attention to situation to his right. Either he allowed more time than he now recalls to elapse between looking right and beginning his turn or he simply failed to notice the plaintiff who was there to be seen.

[23] Even if the defendant was turning at an extremely slow speed and the plaintiff was not there to be seen when the defendant began his turn, the plaintiff obviously would have come into view at some point before the collision. On the defendant’s own evidence, he did not look to his right again before he crossed the double solid centre line.

[24] It is a matter of common knowledge that roads are typically marked with a double solid line at locations where drivers will have reduced visibility of the road ahead. Sections 155 (1)(a) and 156 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, read as follows:

155  (1) Despite anything in this Part, if a highway is marked with

(a) a solid double line, the driver of a vehicle must drive it to the right of the line only,

…

156  If the driver of a vehicle is causing the vehicle to enter or leave a highway and the driver has ascertained that he or she might do so with safety and does so without unreasonably affecting the travel of another vehicle, the provisions of sections 151 and 155 are suspended with respect to the driver while the vehicle is entering or leaving the highway.

[25] Counsel for the defendant argues that the defendant reasonably concluded that he could safely enter the roadway and was leaving enough distance for oncoming vehicles to adjust to his presence. He argues that the effect of s. 156, in those circumstances, is that once the defendant entered the roadway, other drivers including the plaintiff were required to “accommodate” his position. In effect, counsel argues that if the defendant determined on reasonable grounds that he could safely cross the centre line, he acquired the right of way from the moment he entered the roadway.

[26] I cannot accept that submission. Section 155(1)(a), standing alone, contains an outright prohibition against crossing a double solid line. Section 156 does no more than provide limited exceptions to that absolute prohibition. It does not, in my view, diminish the duty to proceed with caution and it does not remove the right of way from another driver who is approaching in his or her proper lane.

[27] In any event, the question of whether or not the defendant was in violation of the statutory provision is not determinative. The question is whether the defendant kept a proper lookout and took appropriate care in the circumstances:  Dickie Estate v. Dickie and De Sousa (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 37 (C.A.).

[28] In Dickie, the plaintiff was in the process of making a u-turn across a double solid line when he was struck by the defendant who was approaching at an excessively high speed. The Court of Appeal said at para. 12:

[The plaintiff] was engaging in a manoeuvre that was fraught with danger. He placed himself and the oncoming drivers in a position of risk. That being so, in my opinion, the law required of him a very high degree of care which would manifest itself in a sharp lookout before he crossed over the solid double line into the northbound lanes on the causeway. There was nothing to prohibit Dickie from seeing the oncoming De Sousa vehicle before his vehicle entered the northbound lanes of travel.

[29] I find that the defendant in this case was similarly “engaging in a manoeuvre that was fraught with danger”. He was making a left turn across a double solid line at a point where there was no intersection or driveway—at a point where oncoming drivers would have no reason to anticipate vehicles entering the roadway. He knew there was a curve to his right and knew or ought to have known that oncoming drivers might have limited visibility. The location and the nature of his manoeuvre required him to pay particular attention to the ditch across the road and I have found that he did so at the expense of being attentive to oncoming traffic.

[30] I also note that the Court in Dickie referred to the need for a sharp lookout before the driver crossed the centre line and before he entered the northbound lanes. In the circumstances of this case, it was not sufficient for the defendant to form an opinion about the safety of his manoeuvre before he entered the roadway. He says that he looked right at that point, but, in my view, his duty to keep a sharp lookout continued beyond that. He gave no evidence of having looked again before crossing the centre line; in my view, reasonable prudence required that he should have done so.

[31] Therefore, I find that the collision at issue was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The question then becomes whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Mr. Justice Smith went on to give reasons explaining why he found the Plaintiff faultless for this crash holding that “the Plaintiff was entitled to proceed on the assumption that all other vehicles will do what it is their duty to do, namely observe the rules regulating traffic”.  Paragraphs 32-37 of the reasons for judgement are worth reviewing for the Court’s full discussion of why this Plaintiff was faultless.

I’ve written many times about the potentially steep financial consequences of being in breach of an ICBC Policy when an injury claim is made.

A frequent type of breach relates to misrepresenting who the principal operator of a vehicle is.   Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating some of the consequences that occur when this type of a misrepresentation is knowingly made.

In today’s case (Deters v. Totovic) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2003 BC Car Crash.  She sued the owner and driver of the other vehicle involved (a mother and daughter respectively).  ICBC refused to provide coverage to the defendants claiming that they misrepresented who the principle operator of the vehicle was when they purchased their policy of insurance.  A Motion was brought before the BC Supreme Court asking the judge to decide if there was a misrepresentation at the time and therefore a breach of insurance.

Mr. Justice Smith decided that the Defendants did knowingly misrepresent who the principal operator of the vehicle was when purchasing insurance from ICBC.  A a result he held that the Defendants lost their right to indemnity from ICBC.

Mr. Justice Smith succinctly summarized the law relating to breach of insurance for principal operation misrepresentation as follows:

[5] Section 19(1)(b) and (e) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231 [Act], as it was in force in 2003, said:

19 (1) If…

(b) an applicant for an owner’s certificate or driver’s certificate knowingly misrepresents or fails to disclose in the application a fact required to be stated in it,…

(e) an insured makes a willfully false statement with respect to a claim under a plan,

all claims by or in respect of the applicant or the insured are rendered invalid, and his or her right and the right of a person claiming through or on behalf of or as a dependant of the applicant or the insured to benefits and insurance money is forfeited.

[6] The regulations to the Act (now called the Insurance (Vehicle) Act) define the principal operator as “the person who will operate the vehicle described in an application for a certificate for the majority of the time the vehicle is operated during the term of the certificate.”

[7] The burden of proving that the insured knowingly misrepresented a material fact is on the insurer. The standard of proof is the civil standard of balance of probabilities. The question of whether or not there has been a knowing misrepresentation is to be determined on the basis of the circumstances that existed at the time the policy of insurance was issued:  Booth v. ICBC, 2009 BCSC 1346 at paras. 7-9.

Mr. Justice Smith pointed out that if the vehicle was insured with the daughter as the principal operator “the insurance would have cost approximately four times what was actually paid”.

The Court went on to make the following finding:

[28] In short, all of the evidence supports the inference, on the balance of probabilities, that (the Daughter) was, in fact, the principal operator of the vehicle during the period covered by the insurance certificate and was using it extensively for work purposes. That finding in itself does not necessarily mean that there was a breach of the insurance coverage because the question is whether or not there was a knowing misrepresentation at the time the policy of insurance was issued.

[29] At the time the policy of insurance was issued on June 25, 2003, (The Daughter) had been working in the T&F Sales job for approximately two months. The circumstances around the time the insurance policy was issued indicate that (the Mother) had to have known that (the Daughter) would be the principal operator of the Mazda—she needed it on a daily basis for her job. Therefore, I find that on the balance of probabilities, Smilja made a misrepresentation when she declared herself to be the principal operator in June 2003…

[31] I therefore find that there was a misrepresentation within the meaning of the Act and therefore the defendants’ right to indemnity for the plaintiff’s claim is forfeited pursuant to s. 19 of the Act. ICBC is also entitled to costs of this action.

What this ruling means, in practical terms, is that if the Plaintiff is successful in her lawsuit, ICBC would pay the judgement to the Plaintiff and then come after the Defendants personally for the damages they had to pay.  Depending on the severity of the claim the consequences could be anywhere from thousands to millions of dollars.  This case shows yet again that the short term financial advantages that can come with principal operator misrepresentation are far outweighed by the financial consequences of being in breach of a policy of insurance.

Interesting reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dealing with the issue of fault in a BC Car Crash, specifically if a driver could be found at fault for having high beams on making it difficult for other motorists to see.

In today’s case (Scott v. Erickson) the Plaintiff was injured when she drove her vehicle off a road and over an embankment in southeastern British Columbia.  Before losing control the Plaintiff was driving a pick up truck Southbound on the highway.  At the same time the Defendant was driving Northbound on the same highway and crossed the road to stop at the community mailboxes in a pullout adjacent to the southound lane.  While retrieving his mail his SUV was off the road to the right of the Plaintiff’s lane of travel.

The Defendant’s vehicle was facing the Plaintiff’s with its high-beams on.  The Plaintiff thought the Defendant’s vehicle was in the oncoming lane so she tried to keep to the right of the Defendant’s vehicle.  Of course there was nothing but an embankment to the right of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle flipped down into the ditch. Mr. Justice Smith found the Defendant 100% at fault for this collision.  In coming to this conclusion Mr. Justice Smith reasoned as follows:

The question is whether the defendant was in breach of the common law duty of care that he owed to other drivers in the circumstances. It is trite law that, apart from specific statutory provisions, every operator of a motor vehicle owes a common law duty to take reasonable care for the safety other users of the highway.  What constitutes reasonable care in a given case depends on what is reasonable in the circumstances.

[25] Those circumstances included the fact that, although he was not parked on the roadway, the defendant knew or should have known that he was close enough to it that his headlights to be visible to oncoming traffic. He also knew or should have known that there were no streetlights or other sources of light that would help oncoming drivers determine the position of his vehicle.

[26] In those circumstances, it was reasonably foreseeable that an approaching driver seeing the defendant’s headlights would assume they were the lights of an oncoming vehicle in the northbound lane and would attempt to ensure that she stayed to the right of that vehicle….

I find that if the defendant had properly turned his mind to the potential hazard he was creating, the proper course would have been to turn off his headlights. If the absence of light from his headlights would have made it more difficult for the defendant to find and open his mailbox, that problem could have been solved with the simple use of a small flashlight.

[29] The hazard created by the defendant in stopping as he did was aggravated by the fact his lights were on high beam, further interfering with the ability of the plaintiff to properly see and assess the situation…

I find that, by leaving his lights on high beam, the defendant was in further breach of his common law duty of care. Whether or not he was stopped on a portion of the highway, the defendant clearly knew or ought to have known that he was stopped close enough to the travelled road surface that his headlights would be shining toward oncoming drivers and the vision of those drivers could be impaired if the lights were on high beam.

[33] I therefore conclude that, in stopping his car in the position he did with his headlights not only illuminated but on high beam, the defendant breached his duty of care.

In addition to the rather unique circumstances of liability, this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of quantum of damages.

Mr. Justice Smith found that the Plaintiff suffered from fairly “minor” physical injuries.  Despite this she went on to suffer from various cognitive difficulties.

The Plaintiff alleged these were due to a brain injury.  Mr. Justice Smith concluded that no brain injury occured in the crash, instead the Plaintiff’s cognitive difficulties were due to a ‘psychological response‘ to the accident.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $85,000 Mr. Justice Smith noted that while a brain injury did not occur, brain injury precedents were useful guides in valuing the Plaintiff’s loss as her diminished functioning mirrored post concussive symptoms in many ways.  Specifically Mr. Justice Smith noted as follows:

[107]     The plaintiff has suffered a persistent psychological reaction to her accident, which has clearly affected her ability to function as she once did in both social and professional settings. She has difficulties with memory and concentration, has difficulty functioning in groups and has suffers from a lack of energy and confidence. She is, in important respects, no longer the person she was and is unable to enjoy most aspects of life as she previously did. However, I have found that she does not have any organic brain injury and her condition is more likely than not to be treatable with the proper interventions.

[108]     Although I did not find the plaintiff to have mild traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder, the impact that her psychological condition has had on her life is in many ways similar to what is seen in cases involving those conditions. Those cases therefore can provide some useful guidance in assessing damages…

[112] I have considered those and other cases referred to, but of course each case must be decided on its own facts and on the need to compensate that plaintiff for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The accident in this case has had psychological consequences that have, to date, significantly interfered with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of life, her ability to function in both social and occupational settings, and her general sense of self worth. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s physical pain and suffering were short-lived, she has failed to prove that she suffered an organic brain injury, and the condition she has proved is one from which she is likely to fully recover with proper treatment. Taking all of those factors into account, I find $85,000 to be an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages.

Yet another “Low Velocity Impact” Injury Claim went to trial and yet again the Court found that a compensable injury existed despite the minimal vehicle damage.

In today’s case (Bourdin v. Ridenour) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 Car Crash in Kamloops, BC.  This was a crash that apparently fell into ICBC’s LVI Program as the minimal amount of vehicle damage was stressed at trial by the defence lawyer (the Plaintiff’s vehicle damage cost only $316 to repair). Despite this Madam Justice Hyslop found that the Plaintiff was injured in the crash.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $22,500 the Court summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows:

[87] Ms. Bourdin had constant pain for approximately five months after the accident.  However, she acknowledged some improvement during that period.  She was plagued with headaches, the severity of which she had never experienced before.  Dr. Vlahos’ clinical records note that Ms. Bourdin, on February 8, 2008, complained of having a “…new onset of headaches.  Head feels like it is in a vise”.  This description is a similar description of the headaches Ms. Bourdin suffered as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

[88] I do accept that Ms. Bourdin suffered from headaches and that they occurred as a result of the accident.  She has been nauseous and vomited with such headaches, the last of which was two weeks before this trial.  According to Ms. Bourdin, headaches of this nature occurred after the accident.  However, Ms. Bourdin did not describe headaches of this nature to either Dr. O’Farrell or Dr. Travlos.

[89] Ms. Bourdin’s neck, shoulder and mid-back were injured as a result of the accident.  She continues to suffer pain from these injuries today, but they are occasional.  At trial, Ms. Bourdin stated that her neck and shoulder pain are now triggered when she is reaching for something, and sometimes everyday events caused neck and shoulder pain without explanation.  She acknowledged improvement in the spring of 2006 and that this has been ongoing from 2006 to the date of trial.  Her chiropractors, her massage therapists and her comments to Dr. O’Farrell and Dr. Travlos confirm this.  She told Dr. O’Farrell that at the time he examined her, her pain was intermittent.

In discussing the LVI Defence to Injury Claims Madam Justice Hyslop quoted a 2006 case (Jackman v. All Season Labour Supplies Ltd.) in which Mr. Justice Smith of the BC Supreme Court pointed out that the LVI defence is not a principle of law but rather “a creature of policy created by ICBC“.  Specifically Mr. Justice Smith held

[12]      On the issue of vehicle damage, I note the comments of Madam Justice Ballance in Robbie v. King 2003 BCSC 1553, at paragraph 35:

The proposition that a low velocity accident is more or less likely to have a propensity of injury is a creature of policy created by ICBC. Although lack of impact severity is by no means determinative of the issue as to whether a person could have sustained an injury, it is nonetheless a relevant consideration particularly with respect to soft tissue injury. Ultimately, the extent of Ms. Robbie’s injuries are to be decided on the evidence as a whole.

[13]      Although lack of vehicle damage may be a relevant consideration, it has to be balanced against the evidence of the plaintiff and the medical evidence, including the complete lack of any medical evidence to support the assertion that the injuries are inconsistent with vehicle damage.

Now for the legal history lesson:

While it is well accepted by BC Courts that ICBC’s LVI Policy is not a legal defense to a tort claim, rather, vehicle damage is just “a relevant consideration” ICBC Defence Lawyers often quote a 1982 case from the BC Supreme Court (Price v. Kostryba) in which Mr. Justice McEachern quoted another BC Supreme Court decision (Butlar v. Blaylock) in which the Court held that:

I am not stating any new principle when I say that the Court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery…

An injured person is entitled to be fully and properly compensated for any injury or disability caused by a wrongdoer. But no one can expect his fellow citizen or citizens to compensate him in the absence of convincing evidence — which could be just his own evidence if the surrounding circumstances are consistent — that his complaints of pain are true reflections of a contuining injury.

However, this often cited quote comes from a case that was overturned on appeal.  In 1983 the BC Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision of Blaylock and held as follows:

12 With the greatest respect, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence upon which one could reasonably conclude that the appellant did not continue to suffer pain as of the date of the trial. After careful consideration of the expert testimony and the evidence of the appellant and his wife, I have reached the conclusion that the only finding open to the learned trial judge was that as of the date of trial the appellant continued to suffer moderate pain and in the words of Dr. Lehmann, his symptoms “will gradually subside with further time. Having been present for approximately two and a half years, it is doubtful that they will disappear completely.” (underlining mine).

13 There are three basic reasons which, in my view, support the conclusion that the plaintiff continued to suffer pain as of the date of trial. Firstly, the plaintiff testified that he continued to suffer pain. His wife corroborated this evidence. The learned trial judge accepted this evidence but held that there was no objective evidence of continuing injury. It is not the law that if a plaintiff cannot show objective evidence of continuing injury that he cannot recover. If the pain suffered by the plaintiff is real and continuing and resulted from the injuries suffered in the accident, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages. There is no suggestion in this case that the pain suffered by the plaintiff did not result from the accident. I would add that a plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for pain, even though the pain results in part from the plaintiff’s emotional or psychological makeup and does not result directly from objective symptoms.

14 Secondly, all of the medical reports support the view that the plaintiff continued to suffer pain and that it was not likely that his symptoms would disappear completely.

15 Thirdly, and of great importance, is the report of Dr. Lehmann, which was not before the learned trial judge for his consideration. In that report, Dr. Lehmann stated that there were degenerative changes in the cervical spine which pre-existed the accident. He said “they were probably asymptomatic before the accident but I think are probably contributing to his prolonged discomfort.” (underlining mine). In my view, as this evidence is uncontradicted, these objective findings cannot be disregarded and should be given great weight.

I hope this ‘history lesson’ helps anyone confronted with ICBC’s LVI Program denying a tort claim because of little vehicle damage.