ICBC Law

Further to my previous posts on this topic, reasons for judgement were released today considering whether to award a Plaintiff Supreme Court Costs in an ICBC Claim where the judgement amount was within the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

In today’s case (Mohamadi v. Tremblay) the Plaintiff was awarded $10,490 in his ICBC Claim after trial (click here to read my summary of the trial judgment).

The Plaintiff brought an application to be awarded ‘costs’ under Rule 57(10) which reads as follows:

A plaintiff who recovers a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court under the Small Claims Act is not entitled to costs, other than disbursements, unless the court finds that there was sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in the Supreme Court and so orders.

ICBC opposed this application.  Mr. Justice Truscott set out the leading test in applying Rule 57(10) from the BC Court of Appeal (Reimann v. Aziz) where the BC high court held that “Considering Rule 57(10) in its legislative context and applying its words in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the legislation and its objects, I conclude that a plaintiff does not have an ongoing obligation to assess the quantum of a claim and that the point in time for a consideration of whether a plaintiff had sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the action.”

Mr. Justice Truscott held that this Plaintiff did not have “sufficient reason for bringing” his lawsuit in the Supreme Court.  He summarized the key reasons behind his conclusion as follows:

[58] I recognize that most plaintiffs with personal injury claims probably feel more comfortable with counsel representing them and more confident that they will obtain a greater amount of damages for their claim with the assistance of counsel than by acting on their own in Small Claims Court.

[59] However, the onus to prove that at the beginning of the claim there is sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in Supreme Court, as Rule 57(10) states, lies in practice to some great extent on plaintiff’s counsel who is advising the plaintiff on the value of his claim and commencing the action.

[60] Here, I am satisfied that if Dr. Fox’s medical records pre-accident had been obtained and if his opinions and the opinions of Dr. Cameron had been obtained before the writ of summons was issued, with the plaintiff’s credibility at issue with respect to the injuries he was alleging that were not supported by his doctors, with his false statement to ICBC, and with the contrary evidence of his employer, it could and should easily have been determined that the action should be commenced in Small Claims Court and not this Court.

In my continued exercise to get used to the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules, I am cross referencing all civil procedure cases I write about with the new rules.   The Current Rule 57(10) will become Rule 14-1(10) and it reads identically to the current rule so the precedents developed under Rule 57(10) regarding costs should continue to assist litigants after July 1, 2010.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court dealing with a fair range of damages for pain and suffering when an accident victim has a pre-existing condition which likely would have been progressive and painful without the accident.

In today’s case (Kaur v. Bhoey) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 BC Car Crash.  She was a passenger and her vehicle lost control and she struck a utility pole.  She was apparently concussed in this collision and was in and out of consciousness at the scene of the crash.

The Plaintiff had a pre-existing condition (osteoporosis with spinal compression fractures) which may have been progressive and led to chronic back pain even without the crash.

Mr. Justice Truscott found that the crash caused ‘soft tissue injuries‘ which caused a ‘kyphotic condition‘ otherwise known as a humpback.   The Court held that, despite the injury, there was “a significant risk that (the plaintiffs) osteoarthritis would have led to more back fractures and more pack pain and kyphosis”  He went on to award $50,000 in damages for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering.  In arriving at this figure Mr. Justice Truscott summarized the law and the key findings of fact as follows:

[5] The plaintiff had pre-existing medical conditions that may affect the value of her claim from this accident and that require consideration of the legal principles confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458.

[6] Athey confirms that an injury is caused by the defendant’s negligence as long as that negligence materially contributes to the injury even though there may be other causes that contribute to the injury as well.

[7] However, on the issue of the proper assessment of a plaintiff’s damages, Athey says, commencing at para. 35 on p. 473:

The defendant need not put the plaintiff in a position better than his or her original position. The defendant is liable for the injuries caused, even if they are extreme, but need not compensate the plaintiff for any debilitating effects of the pre-existing condition which the plaintiff would have experienced anyway. The defendant is liable for the additional damage but not the pre-existing damage… Likewise, if there is a measurable risk that the pre-existing condition would have detrimentally affected the plaintiff in the future, regardless of the defendant’s negligence, then this can be taken into account in reducing the overall award… This is consistent with the general rule that the plaintiff must be returned to the position he would have been in, with all of its attendant risks and shortcomings, and not a better position…

[137] I accept that the kyphotic condition the plaintiff suffers from was caused by her low back soft tissue injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, and not by her pre-existing spinal compression fractures. I accept Dr. Hershler’s opinion in this regard.

[138] I accept Dr. Hershler’s opinion that the two compression fractures the plaintiff had before the accident in her low back were insufficient to cause this kyphotic condition.

[139] Dr. Hershler was able to push the plaintiff’s back to make her stand erect and that is some evidence that the kyphotic condition is being caused by pain and not by the compression fractures in her spine.

[140] This is not to conclude, however, that the plaintiff did not already suffer from some back pain before the accident caused by the compression fractures in her low back, in turn caused by her osteoporosis. Dr. Panesar’s records, and his evidence, as well as Dr. Yorke’s reports, set out previous incidents of back pain.

[141] I do accept, however, that prior to this motor vehicle accident these incidents were being generally controlled by medication.

[142] Still, such a finding does not answer the issue raised in Athey as to whether the plaintiff would have suffered her present state of back pain and accompanying kyphotic condition in any event of the motor vehicle accident, or at least there was a measurable risk of that occurring absent the motor vehicle accident that must be taken into account in reducing the overall award.

[143] With the plaintiff having a history of osteoporosis, with spinal compression fractures and incidents of back pain which Dr. Panesar referred to in 2001 as chronic, and with her advancing age, I am satisfied that the award for general damages must be discounted for the significant risk that her progressive osteoporosis would have led to more back fractures and more back pain and kyphosis, in any event…

[149] Taking into account here that the plaintiff is much older with a shorter life expectancy, and has pre-existing medical issues directly related to her present problem of low back pain, including progressive arthritis, I conclude there is a measurable risk that her pre-existing medical issues would have detrimentally affected her physically in the future regardless of the defendants’ negligence in this motor vehicle accident, and I assess her general damages for pain and suffering from this motor vehicle accident at $50,000.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, awarding a Plaintiff close to $120,000 in total damages as a result of motor vehicle related injuries and losses.

In today’s case (LaFarge v. Natt) the Plaintiff was involved in 3 BC motor vehicle accidents.  The Plaintiff was not at fault for any of the crashes.  The lawyer representing the defendants admitted the issue of liability so the trial focused on the sole issue of damages.

Since all 3 defendants were represented by the same lawyer and fault was admitted for each of the crashes the court did not attribute damages to each specific crash rather damages were assessed globally.  This is not uncommon in BC Injury Claims were ICBC is the insurer for multiple at fault defendants.

Mr. Justice Truscott found that the Plaintiff suffered chronic soft tissue injuries and an anxiety disorder as a consequence of these collisions.  In assessing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $60,000 he summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries and their effect on her life as follows:

[165] I accept that the plaintiff is continuing to suffer from physical injuries sustained in the first accident of March 1, 2002 and aggravated slightly in the following two accidents of October 5, 2002 and May 1, 2003.

[166] I accept that her injuries are now chronic as it is over seven years after the first accident when these injuries were first sustained.

[167] I do conclude that she has developed a restriction of movement as a pain avoidance technique as Dr. Feldman says.  As he states her chronic pain is clouded by her pain focused behaviour without any real pain behaviour being identified…

[169] The critical issue on the plaintiff’s claim for damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life is whether her anxiety issues constitute a psychological disorder or something less, and whether they are caused by the injuries she sustained in the motor vehicle accidents…

[180] I conclude that the initial attack in August 2004 has not been proven to be causally related to her motor vehicle injuries, and some attacks since, as Dr. Buch says, are possibly caused by unrelated aversive social transactions or other stresses in her life.  In fact on consideration of all the evidence of the other stresses in her life I find it just as likely that some of her anxiety attacks are not related to her motor vehicle injuries.

[181] Whether or not her anxiety attacks have reached the level of a psychological disorder, I also conclude the plaintiff has satisfied the onus of proving that at least some of her anxiety attacks are causally related to the injuries in her motor vehicle accidents.

[182] Accordingly, with some of these anxiety attacks caused by injuries in the motor vehicle accidents and some by other stresses in her life, the issue becomes what the defendants should be responsible for…

[185] My conclusion that some of the anxiety attacks are causally connected to the plaintiff’s motor vehicle injuries while the initial anxiety attack of August 2004 is not proven to be so causally connected, and other unidentified anxiety attacks thereafter are likely not causally connected appears to fit the legal doctrine described in Athey as the “crumbling skull” doctrine which recognizes a pre-existing condition inherent in the plaintiff’s original position.  The defendants are not obliged to compensate the plaintiff for any disability effects of the pre-existing condition which the plaintiff would have experienced anyway or did in fact experience.

[186] Here it is my conclusion that the plaintiff’s damages throughout should be discounted by 25 percent to reflect my finding that the first anxiety attack in August 2004 was not causally connected to her injuries and also to take into account the likelihood that other identified anxiety attacks since are unrelated to her injuries and are therefore unproven to be causally connected to her injuries.

[190] I consider the plaintiff’s cases to be more appropriate to consider, particularly Pelkinen v. Unrau where the injuries and psychological consequences to the plaintiff there were somewhat similar and the award for non-pecuniary damages was $90,000 less ten percent for failure to mitigate for a net award of $81,000.

[191] Here the plaintiff submits that an appropriate award to her would be $80,000 and I am prepared to accept this figure for general damages subject to a reduction by 25 percent to allow for the unrelated anxiety attacks to include the August 2004 attack.  The award for non-pecuniary damages will therefore be in the amount of $60,000.