Skip to main content

Month: June 2012

ICBC 'Third Party' Settlement Ends Tort Litigation Despite Defendant Protests

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 60 Comments on ICBC 'Third Party' Settlement Ends Tort Litigation Despite Defendant Protests

When a motorist is in breach of their insurance ICBC has the right to intervene in a lawsuit against them and settle any tort claims arising from a collision pursuant to the powers given to them under sections 76 and 77 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.  ICBC is further given the power to recover the amount of the settlement from the breached motorist provided the settlement was entered into in good faith and further that appropriate notice is given to the breached motorist.  This remedy is available to ICBC even where the ‘breached’ motorist disputes fault for the collision as was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry.
In last week’s case (Chandler v. Gomez) the plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued the defendant for damages.  The defendant was insured with ICBC but the insurer alleged the defendant was in breach of their coverage. ICBC joined the lawsuit as a statutory Third Party and eventually settled the plaintiff’s claim for $112,000.  ICBC sought recovery of this amount from the defendant.  The defendant argued that she was not at fault for the crash and the tort matter should proceed to trial on that issue.  Mr. Justice Greyell disagreed and found that the tort claim was concluded with the settlement despite the defendant’s protests. In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[14] Section 21(6) of the Act (s. 77(2) of the new Act) provides that ICBC has the right to recover any amount paid under or by way of a settlement or other payment, and I refer to this section which provides that:

. . . if the corporation has paid an amount to a person under this section, by way of settlement or otherwise, that it would not otherwise be liable to pay, and has personally delivered or forwarded by registered mail to the last known address of the insured a demand for reimbursement of that amount, the insured is liable to reimburse the corporation that amount, and the corporation may enforce the right [of] action in court.

[15] Accordingly, s. 21 provides ICBC with the right to defend the action, to settle the action, and to recover any amount paid under that settlement from an insured.  In essence, ICBC stands in the place of such defendant when it makes itself a third party to the action, as it has in this case, under s. 21.

[16] The necessary result of a combined reading of ss. 21(2), (6), (7), and (8) is that, upon settlement, the tort action has been concluded.  ICBC has acted pursuant to its statutory authority as insurer to settle the action.

[17] As stated by Madam Justice Gray in Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Schmidt, 2004 BCSC 1786, a case which raises similar issues to those present in this case:

[22]      ICBC’s third party notice is an unusual form of pleading.  It does not purport to make a claim against Mr. Schmidt.  Instead, it denies liability for indemnity and claims the right to defend the action as well.  It does not constitute a claim by ICBC for payment from Mr. Schmidt.

[23]      In fact, no claim against Mr. Schmidt under s. 21(6) could have arisen at the time of the third party notice.  Such a claim can arise only after payment and after delivery of the demand for reimbursement as required.

[24]      The issues in this litigation, a form of lawsuit sometimes termed a “recovery lawsuit,” are whether ICBC has met the terms of the statute giving it a right to recover, and whether the settlement was reasonable and effected by the insurer in good faith.  See the discussion of the respective issues in ICBC v. Doyle, [1984] B.C.J. No. 889, a decision of Judge Boyle when he was a County Court judge.

…

[26]      Bearing in mind this articulation of the issues in any recovery action, the issue before me is whether ICBC’s settlement was reasonable and made in good faith.  If ICBC had paid money to Mr. Neumann following the entry of a dismissal order, it is likely that any payment by ICBC would have been unreasonable.  But I must judge the reasonableness of ICBC’s conduct at the time that settlement was achieved.  At that time, the consent dismissal order had not been made.

…

[33]      While s. 21(2) permits ICBC to compromise or settle the claim at any stage, Mr. Straith argued that once ICBC becomes a third party in a tort lawsuit, the issues between ICBC and the driver over liability ought to be resolved in that lawsuit.  Mr. Straith suggested that if ICBC wanted to be able to proceed against Mr. Schmidt, ICBC ought to have reserved its rights, or proceeded to trial, or obtained an assignment from Mr. Neumann of his claim against Mr. Schmidt, or compromised with a judgment against Mr. Neumann and obtained an assignment of that judgment.

[34]      There is nothing in s. 21 which restricts ICBC to proceed under only one of the subsections, or requiring it to proceed as suggested by Mr. Straith.  Section 21(6) and the case law provide adequate protection for a driver who is denied indemnity by ICBC.  Any compromise ICBC enters into can be recovered from the driver only if the settlement were reasonable and entered into in good faith.

[18] The decision of Madam Justice Gray sets out a clear distinction between the tort action or the issues in the tort action which are between plaintiff and defendants, and ICBC pays out funds pursuant to s. 21.

[19] The lis between the parties in the tort action has been resolved by way of the settlement.  Whether the settlement was reasonable and whether it was effected in good faith is not a subject matter for determination in this case.  That issue must be determined when ICBC seeks to recover the amount it has paid by way of settlement.  The issue as stated is then between ICBC and Ms. Gomez as to whether that settlement was effected reasonably in all the circumstances of the case…

[22] I accept counsel for ICBC’s interpretation of the issue remaining to be determined between the third party ICBC and the defendant Ms. Gomez.  The forum for determination of that issue is in what is commonly referred to as a recovery action by ICBC.  It is not in these proceedings.

Undeclared Income Compensation and the Reality of Trial Testimony

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Wage Loss, Uncategorized.


As previously discussed, while income loss from ‘under the table’ earnings can be recovered in a personal injury claim in BC, doing so often requires testifying to untruthful past tax filings with respect to past earnings.  The papertrail this creates puts plaintiffs with undeclared earnings in a difficult position if they seek to recover damages for their full losses as was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In this week’s case (Wong v. Hemmings) the Plaintiff was injured in two collisions.  She worked as a server for the Fairmont Hotel.  As with many servers, her income was derived from wages and tips.  Her injuries impacted her vocational abilities and damages were awarded for past and future diminished earning capacity.  In presenting her case the Plaintiff presented evidence as to her actual earnings which differed from her declared earnings to Revenue Canada.  Mr. Justice Fitch summarized this evidence as follows and provided the following comments with respect to her undeclared earnings:

[75] It is noteworthy that the plaintiff was informed by the Fairmont, in writing, in early 2011 that her gratuities from credit card sales alone for 2010 were $30,652.82. The plaintiff was advised by her employer that, “this information may be helpful to you when you are preparing your 2010 tax return”.

[76] The plaintiff testified that she makes about $63,000.00 a year. She said it is her practice to declare about $5,000.00 in tip income each year. She is aware that she is obliged to declare all income, including tips and gratuities, on her tax return. She testified that she was, “following industry standard” in not declaring the full amount of her tips and gratuities. She testified that she does not know anyone in the restaurant service industry who declares the full amount of their tips. Having said that, the plaintiff admitted knowing that failing to declare all of her tips and gratuities was wrong. She testified that she could not have supported herself and her daughter had she declared and been taxed on the full amount of her income. She testified that, consistent with her past practice, it was not her intention to declare the full amount of her tip income on her 2011 tax return…

[125] The defendants assert that the plaintiff should not be granted a past wage loss award that includes undeclared tips. They assert this position to preserve an ability to argue the issue in another forum as counsel for the defendants otherwise concedes that this Court is bound by Iannone v. Hoogenraad (1992), 66 B.C.L.R. (2d) 106 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed [1992] S.C.C.A. No. 185, which holds that failure to declare tip income is no bar to the recovery of undeclared tips as past wage loss.

[126] The defendants also submit that the plaintiff has failed to establish what she would have earned in gratuities on her cash sales. As noted above, the Fairmont’s records reflect only the total amount of the plaintiff’s cash sales as a server. Any tip received by a server on a cash sale would be known only to them. The defendants point out that in 2006, for example, and assuming an average 12% tip on cash sales, the tips received by the plaintiff on cash sales represented 8.6% of her total tip earnings. Using this as a baseline, the defendants argue that the plaintiff’s past tip loss should be discounted by 8.6% to reflect the amount of cash tips allegedly lost but not proven.

[127] The defendants are, at least in theory, on firmer ground on this issue. Iannone stands for the proposition that the plaintiff has the burden of leading evidence of past wage loss and that it will be a difficult burden to discharge where there is no confirmatory evidence, such as income tax returns, to establish that the amount claimed would, in fact, have been earned. In this case, however, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has met her burden of proof on this issue. The records of the Fairmont Hotel clearly establish the total of the plaintiff’s cash sales as a server. The plaintiff testified that she would receive, on average, a 12% tip on her cash sales. I accept her evidence on this point.

$125,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Fractured Ankle and Psychological Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Ankle Injury Cases, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Psychological Injury Cases, ICBC PTSD Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, assessing damages for physical and psychological injuries resulting from a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Verge v. Chan) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 head-on collision.  She was 34 at the time and lived a ‘farming lifestyle’ which required significant strenuous labour.  The Plaintiff suffered a fractured ankle and psychological injuries both of which lingered to the time of trial and impeded with her physical lifestyle.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $125,000 Mr. Justice Greyell provided the following reasons:

Ms. Verge suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and back, a fractured right talus, bruising to and pain in her chest, and pain in her left shoulder, both knees, and hip.

[7] She continues to suffer from her ankle injury, sleep disturbance, headaches, stress, anxiety, including post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), depression and chronic pain…

[72] The injury she sustained in the accident of December 6, 2006, has had a significant effect on her physical and mental health.  She is left in virtually constant pain with an unstable ankle such that she can no longer perform the tasks she used to perform on the farm and about the house or enjoy the hobbies and recreational pursuits she used to enjoy pre-accident.  She has developed mental health issues, including PTSD and depression, which will require a significant course of treatment before she can return to work.  As a result of her injuries, the work opportunities which will be available to her are less than pre-accident.  She has lost the farming lifestyle she enjoyed and her family, marital, and social relationships have been impaired…

78] After considering the evidence, the factors enumerated by the Court of Appeal in Stapley, and the authorities cited by counsel, I award non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $125,000.

Court Criticizes Unilateral Discovery Scheduling Practices

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 22, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized. 57 Comments on Court Criticizes Unilateral Discovery Scheduling Practices


Unilaterally scheduled discoveries, while technically permissible, are a frowned upon practice.  Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, critically commenting on such a tactic.
In this week’s case (Morgan v. BC Transit) the Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of a motor vehicle incident.  In the course of the litigation issues arose with respect to scheduling the discovery of the Plaintiff.  The Defendant unilaterally set a discovery date which the Plaintiff indicated he could not attend.  After non-attendance the Defendant brought a motion seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim but eventually backed away from this harsh request and instead sought an order that the Plaintiff attend discovery on another date and further seeking costs.
The court directed the parties to get on with the discovery and reserved dealing with costs consequences until this took place.  Ultimately Mr. Justice Betton dismissed the Defendants application and ordered that costs be paid to the Plaintiff.  In doing so the Court provided the following comments regarding unilaterally set examinations for discovery:
[14]         Obviously, the system would be challenged if appointments were routinely taken out without consultation with opposing parties and applications for dismissal followed non-attendance at such appointments. There is a balance that requires considered utilization of Rule 22-7(5). Circumstances must justify the application. Those who have an obligation to submit to an examination for discovery must cooperate reasonably in allowing the examinations for discovery to occur. Indeed it is a relatively unusual application and quite rare that such a severe remedy is granted. The reasons for this are numerous and most are self-evident. Most parties are represented and counsel are well aware of their own and their clients’ obligations. They make accommodations appropriately and reasonably to assist in achieving the objectives of the Rules. Even those who are not represented understand that procedural rules exist, and are to be followed, and there are consequences for failing to do so.

[15]I note in this case, there is no evidence before me indicating that there was any particular urgency to having the examination for discovery of the plaintiff concluded by the end of December. The trial date, as I noted, is set for December of 2012. When the December 1 date was adjourned on November 8, there was some discussion, but nothing done to formally set the examination for discovery until November 28, approximately three weeks later, when the issues quite quickly emerged. In this case, it is of significance that plaintiff’s counsel advised on December 18, approximately one month before this application was filed, that he had become available to have the examination for discovery of the plaintiff concluded in early January 2012. That is now some two months ago.

[16]There are cases when parties with or without counsel either use the Rules or ignore them to frustrate another’s legitimate efforts to prepare their case. In my view, this is not one of those cases. There are also cases where the Rules are used in ways which serve to defeat the broader objectives as described in the Rules of having cases proceed in an efficient and fair way. In all of the circumstances, it is my conclusion that the defence in these circumstances was overly aggressive in its utilization of this Rule and making an application to have the action dismissed with costs to the defendants; pressing to set the date on December 15 without consultation or without agreement was not necessary. Of most significance is the fact that before this application was set, plaintiff’s counsel had advised that they were now available to accommodate the examination for discovery occurring in early January. That discovery would have long since been concluded, rather than now being set in March and this application having had to proceed.

[17]In all of the circumstances, I decline to grant any costs thrown away to the defence for the examination for discovery of December 15, 2011.

[18]With respect to the costs of this application, in the circumstances, the defence will not have its costs of this application. The plaintiff will have its costs.

BC Court of Appeal Confirms Solicitor's Liens Can Apply Retroactively

Written by admin on . Posted in Settlement Law, Uncategorized. 104 Comments on BC Court of Appeal Confirms Solicitor's Liens Can Apply Retroactively

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Court of Appeal discussing the effects of a Solicitor’s Lien under the Legal Profession Act in the context of a personal injury claim prosecuted on a contingency basis.
In this week’s case (FitzGibbon v. Piters) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision.  She hired a lawyer to advance her claim for damages.  In the course of the claim a breakdown occurred in the relationship and the Plaintiff retained new counsel.  The claim eventually settled and the first firm sought payment from the settlement amount by way of solicitor’s lien.  No notice of this lien was given, apparently, until after settlement and disbursement of funds.  A dispute arose whether a solicitor’s lien could be attached retroactively to the settlement.  The Court of Appeal agreed that it could and that a valid lien existed in these circumstances.  In doing so BC’s high court provided the following reasons:

30] The nature of the charge arising may be described an “inchoate right”, the crystallization of which requires only the pronouncement of the court [see Re Tots and Teens Sault Ste. Marie Ltd., et al (1975), 65 D.L.R. (3d) 53 (Ont. H.C.J.)].  While the charge exists, by statute, upon the recovery of property as a result of the retained lawyer’s efforts, the charge only becomes enforceable upon declaration by the Court under s. 79(3).

[31] This analysis is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Jenik v. Fearn, (1995) 130 D.L.R. (4th) 695 (B.C.S.C.), and in Chouinard.

[32] The decision of whether to make a declaration upon application is a discretionary one.  The judge must be satisfied that it would be “just and proper” to grant the order (see Wilson, King & Co. v. Lyall (Trustees of) (1987), 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 353 (C.A.), and Cliffs Over Maple Bay Investments Ltd. (Re), 2011 BCCA 346, 21 B.C.L.R. (5th) 297).

[33] It is not an answer to the inchoate nature of the charge to say that the property it applies to has not been identified.  In Doyle v. Keats, (1990) 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 54 (S.C.), the Court said:

It is my opinion that the words “any property” used in s. 79 of the Legal Profession Act are as well of the widest possible character, and include a chose in action. Further, I am of the view that the specific property need not be immediately ascertained. It is generally, but not exclusively, the client’s interest in the property which is subject to the charge: Walker v. Saunders, supra. The ascertaining of the extent of that interest may occur subsequent in time to the creation of the charge.

[34] In my respectful opinion, the argument that a charging order under s. 79 cannot have retrospective effect is not supported either by the language of the statute or by the relevant caselaw.

Left Hand Turner Found 100% At Fault for Intersection Crash on Fresh Amber

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on Left Hand Turner Found 10047 At Fault for Intersection Crash on Fresh Amber

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing fault for an intersection crash involving a left hand turning vehicle and a through driver.
In the recent case (Andrews v. Mainster) the parties were driving in opposite direction on 16th Avenue in Vancouver, BC.  Ms. Andrews attempted to drive through the intersection. Of 16th and Fir.  The light turned amber as Ms. Andrews was about one car length away.  At the same time the motorist in the opposite lane of travel, who was already committed in the in the intersection, attempted to turn left resulting in collision.  Both parties sued each other.  In finding the turning motorist fully at fault Mr. Justice Masuhara provided the following reasons:

[30] It was dry and sunny at the time of the accident. Ms. Mainster had a clear and unobstructed view up West 16th to Granville Street. Ms. Andrews was not driving at an excessive speed on West 16th. Rather, she was driving at a normal speed approximately 45 km/h.

[31] I find that Ms. Mainster had proceeded into the intersection beyond the westside crosswalk and was waiting for traffic to pass through.

[32] More likely than not, Ms. Andrews was talking to Mr. Priolo just prior to the accident and that Ms. Andrews’ head was turned somewhat towards Mr. Priolo.

[33] I also find that Ms. Mainster turned left into the lane of oncoming traffic at the time the light for traffic on West 16th turned yellow. I also find at this same time Ms. Andrews’ car was within a car length of the intersection.  Ms. Andrews was the dominant driver relative to Ms. Mainster.

[34] I find that Ms. Andrews’ vehicle constituted an “immediate hazard”. I find that Ms. Mainster did not “yield” and that she did not become the dominant driver.

[35] I find that the collision occurred in the intersection closer to the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection than in the middle of the intersection.

[36] I note that Ms. Mainster agreed that if she would have looked eastward that she should have been able to see the red Mazda and could not explain why she did not see it. Ms. Mainster said that it was just a brief moment between the time the front of her car had just moved to turn and the collision. The first time she saw the Mazda was at the time of the collision. The theory that Ms. Andrews must have been travelling excessively and if seen initially would have been at the eastern end of West 16th (closer to Granville) has not been made out. As a result, Ms. Mainster in not seeing the Andrews’ car was not paying proper attention to oncoming traffic.  She did not meet the standard of care of a driver in her circumstances.

[37] Though, Ms. Andrews had her head somewhat turned toward Mr. Priolo in conversation as she was driving towards the intersection just before the collision, I do not find that she had taken her eyes off the road in front of her. I also do not find that Ms. Andrews had a duty to anticipate that Ms. Mainster would move into her lane when she did.  In any event, the proximity of the two vehicles was such that when Ms. Mainster moved into the lane of oncoming traffic that Ms. Andrews would have been unable to take sufficient action to avoid the collision.

[38] In the circumstances, I find Ms. Mainster to be entirely liable for the accident.

Defendant 75% at Fault for Crash Despite Being Rear Ended

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 52 Comments on Defendant 7552 at Fault for Crash Despite Being Rear Ended

Although not common, motorists can be found partly or even wholly at fault after being involved in a rear-end collision.  Such a result was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released earlier this month by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In the recent case (Stanikzai v. Bola) the Plaintiff rear-ended the Defendant’s vehicle.  The Court was presented with competing versions of how the collision occurred but ultimately accepted the evidence of an independent witness who confirmed the Defendant “quickly” moved into the Plaintiff’s lane as we was attempting a U-turn in front the the Plaintiff’s vehicle.  In finding the Defendant 75% at fault for the resulting impact Mr. Justice Smith provided the following reasons:

] The only independent witness called was Mr. Tiwana, a truck driver who was behind the plaintiff in the left lane. Like the plaintiff, he described the defendant’s van moving into the right lane, then quickly attempting a u-turn in front of the plaintiff’s vehicle, leaving the plaintiff no time to react. However, one significant difference between the plaintiff’s evidence and that of Mr. Tiwana is that Mr. Tiwana said he saw the left turn signal on the defendant’s vehicle before what he described as the attempted u-turn.

[7] There is no doubt that when one vehicle hits another from behind, the onus is on the driver of the rear vehicle to show that the collision was not caused by his or her fault: Barrie v Marshall, 2010 BCSC 981. A driver following other vehicles is expected to keep his vehicle under sufficient control to be able to deal with sudden stopping or slowing of the vehicle in front: Pryndik v. Manju, 2001 BCSC 502.

[8] But while liability for a rear end collision usually rests entirely with the following driver, that is not an invariable result. For example, in Saffari v Lopez, 2009 BCSC 699, both drivers were found to be equally at fault for a rear end collision. In that case, the front driver stopped or slowed suddenly, ostensibly to retrieve a fallen cigarette, but the court found that the rear driver was travelling either too fast or too close behind to stop when confronted with the hazard.

[9] The plaintiff and the defendant in this case give conflicting evidence that cannot be reconciled. In attempting to determine what happened, on the balance of probabilities, I prefer the evidence of the only independent witness, Mr. Tiwana. He describes the defendant moving suddenly into the plaintiff’s lane in circumstances where the plaintiff did not have time to stop. That is not consistent with the defendant’s evidence of the lapse of time between her lane change and the collision and I do not accept her evidence on that point. I do accept her evidence that she had no reason to be making a u-turn and was not attempting one, but I find that her turn to the left on impact likely created the mistaken impression of a u-turn.

[10] Based on Mr. Tiwana’s description of the accident, I find that the defendant, in changing lanes, failed to notice or properly assess the position of other vehicles and failed to ensure that she had sufficient room to change lanes safely. Section 151(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 reads:

151 A driver who is driving a vehicle on a laned roadway

(a) must not drive from one lane to another when a broken line only exists between the lanes, unless the driver has ascertained that movement can be made with safety and will in no way affect the travel of another vehicle,

[11] I therefore find that the accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the defendant. However, on the basis of Mr. Tiwana’s evidence, the plaintiff must also bear some responsibility because he failed to see the defendant’s turn signal. Although the defendant’s move was a sudden one, seeing her turn signal would likely have given the plaintiff an earlier opportunity to either apply his brakes or to at least use his horn to warn the defendant of his presence.

[12] Because it was the defendant who created the dangerous situation, I find that she must bear the greater share of blame and apportion liability 75 per cent to the defendant and 25 per cent to the plaintiff.

$125,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Cough

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Spine Injury Cases.

In what can be described as a fairly unique injury, reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, assessing damages for a chronic cough caused by a motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Reilander v. Campbell) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 rear-end collision.  The Plaintiff developed a chronic cough following the crash.  The Plaintiff alleged this was caused by a C5/6 disc herniation which interfered with her oesophagus resulting in the chronic cough.

The Plaintiff went on to have surgery to address her disc injury which somewhat improved her chronic cough.  Mr. Justice Leask found that the cough was indeed related to the collision and assessed non-pecuniary damages at $125,000.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[26] Dr. Matishak’s opinion was that Ms. Reilander:

… suffered the onset of neck pain, persistent and unremitting cough, and left arm pain and weakness following the motor vehicle accident of July 29th, 2006. Radiological investigation revealed a central C5/6 disc herniation. Therefore, I would opine that the C5/6 disc herniation is a direct result of the motor vehicle accident of July 29th, 2006…

[32] Taking into account the facts that I have found based on the evidence given by the Reilander family and the expert opinions of both Dr. Matishak and Dr. Gittens, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the motor vehicle accident of July 29, 2006 caused a disc herniation at C5/6 on her cervical spine and that disc herniation was the principal cause of her persistent and debilitating cough…

[36] Considering the effect on the plaintiff’s personal life, child-rearing responsibilities, marital relationship and her ability to participate in the exercise of her religion, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s submission is appropriate. I award the plaintiff $125,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Wrist Fracture With Post Traumatic Arthritis

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Wrist Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on $85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Wrist Fracture With Post Traumatic Arthritis

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a fractured wrist which resulted in post traumatic arthritis and permanent dysfunction.
In last week’s case the Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant’s vehicle as she was crossing the street.  Fault for the crash was admitted.  The Plaintiff suffered a comminuted fracture of her distal radius which required surgery.

The injury resulted in post traumatic arthritis developing which interfered with its function and was expected to cause limitations on a permanent basis.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 the Court highlighted the following medical evidence addressing prognsois and provided the following reasons:
[9] In his May 15 report, Dr. Somani states as follows:
…

Prognosis.

It is my opinion that the Plaintiff has plateaued with respect to function.  She continues to have discomfort of the right wrist. Clinical examination has demonstrated reduced range of motion and reduced grip strength. Recent x-rays have confirmed probable premature osteoarthritis which may be progressive.

The Plaintiff has impairment in the abilities to self-care, housecleaning, laundry, complex meal preparation and transportation as outlined by the occupational therapy assessment.

The Plaintiff will continue to require support services which may include cleaning, meal preparation, shopping, laundry and transportation.

The Plaintiff may require specialized bracing for her right wrist and possibly an orthopedic opinion should her osteoarthritis progress in the future.

The Plaintiff will continue to require analgesia for pain management and regular assessments of her home with respect of safety features including handrails etc….

[22] On March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff was an active, independent woman of 76 clearly taking great pleasure in her life.  After her injury, she was not able to look after herself and took a long while to even get back to walking.  Now she is left with a right hand of limited use because of pain, arthritis and de-conditioning, a fear of walking on her own and significant loss of function such that she can no longer cook as she once did, or do the heavier housework.  She continues to have pain and suffering and her enjoyment of life is markedly diminished.  For that loss, I award her general damages of $85,000.