Skip to main content

$45,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Lingering Soft Tissue Injuries to Neck and Back

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries caused by a motor vehicle collision.
In this week’s case (Sekhon v. Nguyen) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 rear-end collision.  He was 14 at the time.  At trial it was found that “there has been a certain amount of exaggeration…with respect to his injuries” and his claim for chronic headaches was rejected.  Despite this, the Court accepted that the Plaintiff suffered from soft tissue injuries to his neck and back and that the prognosis for full recovery was guarded.  In assessing non-pecuniary loss at $45,000 Madam Justice Ross provided the following reasons:
[49]         I am satisfied that Mr. Sekhon suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck and back in the motor vehicle accident and that as a result he has suffered from headache, neck and back pain. These injuries have gradually but not completely resolved. The prognosis for complete recovery is guarded. I find further that to the extent to which he has suffered from headaches of the kind he described experiencing after August 2009, he has failed to meet the burden to establish causation. I find that he has not suffered from headaches of the frequency and intensity described in his testimony as occurring after August 2009 as a result of injuries suffered in the accident.
[50]         The injuries have interfered with Mr. Sekhon’s enjoyment of many of the activities he engaged in prior to the accident. However, he remains an active young man, able to work, attend school and enjoy many recreational activities.
[51]         In all of the circumstances, I award $45,000 for non-pecuniary loss.

The Death of the LVI Program?

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Hip Injury Cases, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Psychological Injury Cases.

I have it on good authority that ICBC’s Low Velocity Impact Program is being largely scrapped.  Instead of the conventional LVI denials for collisions with under $2,000 of vehicle damage, I am informed that ICBC will now only deny claims under the LVI policy in cases where vehicle damage is limited to “scuffs, scrapes or scratches“.  Anything beyond this minimal paint damage will be adjusted on overall merits.  I have not yet seen a written copy of this shift in policy but if I do I will be sure to share it here.
With this introduction out of the way, the latest judicial nail in the LVI coffin was released this week.  In this week’s case (Midgley v. Nguyen) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2004 collision.  He suffered various injuries and sued for damages. ICBC argued this was a Low Velocity Impact and that the plaintiff was not injured.  Madam Justice Dardi soundly rejected this argument finding the Plaintiff suffered from a torn labru in his right hip along with psychological injuries.  She assessed non-pecuniary damages at $110,000.  In dismissing the LVI Defence the Court provided the following critical comments:
[174]     The overarching submission of the defence was that “this was a nothing accident”. The tenor of the defence submission was that, since there was no damage to Mr. Midgley’s motor vehicle, he could not have sustained the damage he alleges in the 2004 Accident.
[175]     There is no legal principle that holds that if a collision is not severely violent or if there is no significant damage to a motor vehicle, the individual seated within that vehicle at the time of the impact cannot have sustained injuries. The authorities clearly establish that, while the lack of vehicle damage may be a relevant consideration, the extent of the injuries suffered by a plaintiff is not to be measured by the severity of the force in a collision or the degree of the vehicle’s damage. Rather, the existence and extent of a plaintiff’s injuries is to be determined on the basis of the evidentiary record at trial: see Gordon v. Palmer (1993), 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 236.
[176]     As I referred to earlier, the defence led no opinion evidence to support the assertion that the force of the impact in this case was incapable of producing the injury alleged by Mr. Midgley. I accept Mr. Midgley’s evidence regarding his body position at the time of impact and that, as far as he was concerned, the collision was jarring. In any case, there is expert medical evidence, which I find persuasive, that supports the relationship between the 2004 Accident – and, in particular, Mr. Midgley’s body position at the time of impact – and the existence of his injuries.
[177]     On the totality of the evidence, I am persuaded that Mr. Midgley sustained an injury in the 2004 Accident, in spite of the fact that his vehicle apparently was not damaged.

Preliminary Class Action Fee Approval Not Appropriate Absent "Exceptional Circumstances"

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Section 38 of BC’s Class Proceedings Act requires judicial approval with respect to any class action fee agreement prior to it being enforceable .  Interesting reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the timing of such approval. In short the Court held that ‘preliminary’ approval prior to settlement/judgement is not appropriate absent “exceptional” circumstances.
In this week’s case (Plimmer v. Google, Inc.) the Plaintiff filed a proposed class action against Google. The Plaintiff’s lawyer sought a “preliminary but not final approval of the Plaintiff’s fee agreement“.  Madam Justice Griffin found that such approval was not warranted in the usual course and provided the following feedback:
[55]         I conclude that preliminary approval of fee arrangements in class proceedings in B.C. should only be sought in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a novel and potentially controversial form of agreement of which the court should be apprised in its supervisory role, to address and avoid the potential that the agreement could later be seen as affecting the integrity of the legal process or the proper administration of justice.  Over time as case law develops and gives guidance to counsel and representative plaintiffs, there will be less occasion for these exceptional circumstances to arise. 
[56]         Those exceptional circumstances do not exist here with respect to the fairness and reasonableness of the fee agreement in general.  I consider it inappropriate to address the approval of the fee agreement in slices, and I conclude that it is premature to consider these general issues at this early stage.
[57]         The role of the court is not to give preliminary legal advice to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel, and the court ought not to be put in the position of making what are essentially moot rulings without all of the facts before it.
[58]         For the most part, the court’s assessment of the fee agreement in this case should await another day when the court will have heard all of the relevant evidence including as to the risks, merits and complexities of the case, and when other class members will have received notice of the fee agreement. 
 
The Court went on to note that one issue did deserve preliminary comment, and that was an order with respect to fee splitting agreements amongst various lawyers.  The Court held that there was nothing wrong in principle with such agreements in a BC class action lawsuit and provided the following reasons:
[59]         I make the above general observations subject to one aspect of the fee agreement which warrants judicial consideration now.  That aspect concerns the plaintiff lawyers’ arrangements to fee-split with assisting lawyers who are based in the United States.
[60]         The case law regarding Canadian counsel cooperating in class proceedings with lawyers based in the United States is evolving.  I recognize that the plaintiff’s B.C. counsel are being prudent by advising the court of the fee-splitting arrangements they have entered into precisely because the case law is developing and such arrangements could affect the administration of justice. 
[61]         I have concluded that the novelty and potentially controversial nature of these types of arrangements are exceptional circumstances which justify the court embarking on the supervisory task of reviewing the fee agreement in respect of its arrangements to split the plaintiff’s counsel fees with lawyers based in the United States…
[78]         In conclusion, leaving aside the percentage split which is not for this Court to approve at this time, I declare as an interim order that this Court approves in principle of the fee-splitting arrangement between the plaintiff’s B.C. counsel of record, and the Assisting Lawyers, in substantially the terms as described to this Court.
[79]         I considered stating this declaration in the negative, namely, that this Court does not disapprove of the fee-splitting arrangement, to reinforce the limitations in the supervisory discretion I have exercised.  The point I wish to emphasize is that the application for final approval of the fee agreement should proceed as a hearing de novo when it comes to the end of the case. 

When Does An Award of $20,000 = A Significant Debt

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9. 61 Comments on When Does An Award of $20,000 = A Significant Debt

No, this is not a trick question.  When can a judge awarding you $20,000 leave you in ‘significant’ debt?  The answer is when you fail to beat a formal offer at trial and have ‘loser pays’ costs assessed you.  I’ve discussed this reality previously and it was demonstrated yet again in reasons for judgement released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In last week’s case (Gonzales v. Voskakis) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collison.  Prior to trial ICBC provided a formal settlement offer of $69,000.  The Plaintiff rejected this and proceeded to have a 12 day trial where she sought in excess of $385,000.  The claim was largely unsuccessful with the trial judge awarding just over $20,000 in damages.  ICBC asked that the Plaintiff be stripped of post offer costs and that the Defendant be awarded post offer costs and disbrsements.  The Plaintiff argued that such a result would “negate her entire judgement and leave her significantly in debt“.   Madam Justice Fitzpatrick noted that the underlying “behaviour modification objective” of the Rules of Court override any sympathy to the Plaintiff and levied substantial costs consequences.
The decision is also worth reviewing for the discussion of whether a post offer costs award to a Defendant can include disbursements.  The Plaintiff argued the Rules don’t contemplate this but the Court disagreed. In finding disbursements were also encompassed in the Rule Madam Justice Fitzpatrick provided the following reasons:
[65]         Rule 9-1(5) is headed “Cost options”. It is clearly intended to guide the court in deciding what costs award is just. Nevertheless, I do not see that subcategory (d) was intended to limit the discretion of the court to award a defendant’s disbursements in all cases when rewarding a defendant for making a reasonable offer. In many cases, disbursements are significant. In fact, the driving force behind an offer to settle may be the desire to avoid having to pay those disbursements. To limit the discretion of the court in awarding disbursements would defeat the clear intention of the Rule.
[66]         Although Brown J. came to another conclusion in Moore relating to double disbursements under Rule 9-1(5)(b), it appears that Kendall and Skidmore were not in front of her at that time. Therefore, in applying the principles set out in Re Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd., [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590, I do not consider that I am bound by her reasoning.
[67]         I acknowledge that the wording of Rule 9-1(5), in its reference to “disbursements” in subcategory (a) without an accompanying reference to “disbursements” in subcategory (d), is awkward and confounding. In my view, however, the fundamental purpose of the Rule — which, as stated by the Court of Appeal in Kendall and Skidmore, is to compensate for all “costs”, including disbursements — has not changed. One can only hope for some clarity on this issue by possible amendments to Rule 9-1(5).
[68]         In the meantime, I conclude that I have the discretion under Rule 9-1(5)(d) to award the defendant his costs, including disbursements.
[69]         I award such costs, which will include disbursements, in favour of Mr. Voskakis for the period from January 25, 2012 until February 29, 2012.

$40,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Mild, Intermittent, Indefinite" Soft Tissue Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a long term soft tissue injury.
In the recent case (Sahota v. Ho) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2001 collision.  He was 9 years old at the time.  He suffered soft tissue injuries which continued to be symptomatic.  Although the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s characterization as to the severity of his symptoms the Court accepted they were on-going and would continue indefinitely   In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Mr. Justice Cohen made the following findings:
[185]     Thus, I find as follows:
(1)      the plaintiff sustained injuries to his head, abdomen and neck as a result of the accident on September 29, 2001.  The plaintiff’s injury to his head and abdomen resolved shortly after the accident.  The plaintiff continued to experience occasional headaches, but this symptom has also since resolved.  The plaintiff’s neck pain is on-going and will likely continue indefinitely;
(2)      the plaintiff’s injury to his neck was a mild, soft tissue injury.  The evidence from the clinical records of Dr. Chua is that from both a subjective and objective point of view, he noted “mild” with respect to what the plaintiff reported to him and what he found upon examination.  He also conceded in cross-examination that he did not ever use the terms “moderate” or “severe” in his clinical records.  In my opinion, the plaintiff’s complaints regarding his neck pain were not as severe as described by the plaintiff and his father in their testimony.  I do not agree with the plaintiff’s position that the plaintiff’s neck is appropriately characterized as a “moderately severe cervical strain” as stated by Dr. Chua in his August 2007 report; and
(3)      the neck pain experienced by the plaintiff was intermittent, rather than every day or “constant” as the plaintiff and his father insisted.  If the plaintiff or his father had reported to Dr. Chua that the plaintiff experienced neck pain every day, or that the plaintiff’s neck pain was “constant”, then Dr. Chua would have written this description in his clinical records.  Instead, Dr. Chua recorded that the pain was “on and off” or “recurrent”, terms which are not synonymous with the word “constant”.   Furthermore, those terms were used elsewhere in Dr. Chua’s clinical records in reference to other symptoms that do not support such an interpretation.  I also prefer the testimony of Ms. Porter to that of the plaintiff’s father regarding whether the plaintiff experienced improvements in his condition over the period of time following the accident.  Her testimony is in keeping with the evidence of Dr. Chua who mentioned in his report of August 2002 that the plaintiff had improved from his injuries…
[202]     I am mindful that the plaintiff continues to be symptomatic and that his neck pain is likely to continue in the foreseeable future.  However, given my findings on the chronicity and severity of the plaintiff’s pain, in the context of the evidence regarding the extent of the suffering and inconvenience experienced by the plaintiff following the accident, I find that a fair award to him for general damages is $40,000.

At-Scene Admission Tips the Scales at Liability Trial

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 56 Comments on At-Scene Admission Tips the Scales at Liability Trial

As previously discussed, admissions in the aftermath of a collision can be important evidence when a liability case proceeds to trial.  Reasons for judgement were released this week where such evidence was the crucial tipping point.
In this week’s case (Koshman v. Brodis) the parties were involved in an intersection collision. Both claimed to have a green light.  Both had independent witnesses confirming their versions of events.  Ultimately the Court held that while it was a close call the Plaintiff likely had the green light and held the Defendant fully at fault.  In reaching this conclusion the Mr. Justice Ehrcke provided great weight to an at-scene admission made by the Defendant.  The following reasons were provided:
[26]         A determination should not be made simply by counting the number of witnesses on each side, nor is the testimony of an off-duty police officer necessarily of more weight than that of a civilian witness.
[27]         Clearly, different people at the scene saw things differently, and have different memories of how this accident occurred. That is not particularly unusual in a trial such as this.
[28]         What is somewhat unusual in this case is that both the plaintiff and a neutral civilian witness, Mr. Fontaine, testified that after the collision the defendant acknowledged responsibility. The plaintiff testified that the defendant said to her at the scene that the accident was her fault. The defendant testified that if she said this, she did not mean to imply that she admitted liability. Mr. Fontaine testified that the defendant said to him, “Oh my God, I’m so sorry, I didn’t see the red light.” The defendant denies having said those words.
[29]         I do not accept the defendant’s explanation for what she said to the plaintiff at the accident scene, and I do not believe her denial of what she said to Mr. Fontaine. I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that she did say these things, and she did so because she was aware that she had entered the intersection against a red light.
One matter of interest that did not appear to be canvassed was whether this admission should have been admitted give section 2 of BC’s Apology Act which holds that an apology “does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter,” and that it “must not be taken into account in any determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter.”

Admissibility of "Incompetent" Litigant Hearsay Canvassed in BC Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archived caselaw addressing points of civil procedure, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the admissibility of various out of Court statements made by a Plaintiff involved in injury litigation.
In this week’s case (Saadati v. Moorehead) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 collision and sued for damages.  He was also involved in subsequent and previous collisions not before the Court.  Prior to trial the Plaintiff was declared “mentally incompetent” and could not testify.  In the course of the trial both the Plaintiff and the Defendant sought to introduce various pre-trial statements into evidence as exceptions to the hearsay rule.  The decision is worth reviewing in full for the Court’s analysis.  The statements considered included
1. an excited utterance at the scene of the collision
2.  statements to his GP, kinesiologist and treating specialist
3. statements to friends and family
4.  statements to an ICBC adjuster
5. paycheque stubs, pay statements, pay sheets and tax returns
6. Admissions against interest

Vague Evidence Leads to Significant Rejection of Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

In a demonstration that detailed evidence is important when advancing a personal injury claim for damages at trial, reasons for judgemet were published last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, largely rejecting a claim due to “vague” plaintiff evidence.
In last week’s case (Kartouchine v. Coons) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 collision.  He suffered soft tissue injuries and sought approximately $70,000 in damages at trial.  Madam Justice Griffin rejected much of the Plaintiff’s claim and assessed modest non-pecuniary damages of $2,000.  In addressing the lack of detailed evidence the Court provided the following feedback:
[16]         Also starkly absent is what happened between the accident and the date of his affidavit of October 5, 2011.  Has he always had these periodic episodes of pain?  How often are they?  How is his lifestyle impacted?  How active is he day-to-day?  How do we know something else in his life or job has not occurred to cause these episodes? 
[17]         In short, the evidence of the plaintiff is so vague that it does not permit me to draw any conclusions in respect of the duration or severity of ongoing injuries.  He has not supplied sufficient detail to enable me to assess the probability that what he asserts is true.  His affidavit is an outline only which is not coloured in. 
[18]         Plaintiff’s counsel submits at para. 127 of the written submission:
127.     The medical expert reports document the plaintiff’s injuries showing several years of pain and stiffness which is intermittent but at times quite severe.  The affidavit of the plaintiff documents a continuing struggle over six-and-a-half years and his efforts at mitigation. 
[19]         I must take these submissions as rhetorical hyperbole rather than evidence?based. 
[20]         The medical evidence such as it is, does not support the plaintiff’s submissions.  The plaintiff does attach clinical records to his affidavit but these are largely illegible.  Nowhere in his affidavit does he say that the records accurately record his visits to doctors or his complaints made to the doctors.  There is no evidence that the clinical records accurately record observations made by the physicians either.  Simply appending them to his affidavit does not establish the truth of their contents.  I find them to be completely useless to support his case. ..
[42]         In conclusion, I do not find there to be sufficient medical evidence to persuade me that the collision caused the plaintiff to suffer long-term injuries causing him continued pain and suffering and the loss of enjoyment of life. 
[43]         Considering the factors influencing an award of non-pecuniary damages, I find that the evidence only supports the conclusion that the plaintiff suffered some minor inconvenience and discomfort as of the date of the accident when he felt it necessary to see his medical doctor.  I therefore award him $2,000 in non-pecuniary damages. 

Plaintiff's "Financial Situation" Shields Her From Loser Pays Costs

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14. 53 Comments on Plaintiff's "Financial Situation" Shields Her From Loser Pays Costs

A short but interesting exchange can be found at the end of reasons for judgement recently published by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, discussing loser pays costs and a Plaintiff’s financial circumstances.
In the recent case (Hunstad v. Cormier) the Plaintiff was injured when her bicycle was involved in a collision with the Defendant’s vehicle.  She sued for damages but her claim was dismissed at trial.  The Defendant sought costs but the Court declined to award these given the Plaintiff’s financial circumstances. This is an interesting development because while the financial position of parties can be considered if a formal offer has been made, it has been held that it is an irrelevant consideration in the normal course.  The below brief exchange, while arguably not conclusive as it is not a final order, can arguably be used to open the door to financial hardship as a factor when considering BC’s ‘loser pays’ costs consequences:
 
[86]         MR. KENT-SNOWSELL: Costs, My Lord?
[87]         THE COURT: I am not going to order costs because of Ms. Hunstad’s financial situation. If you want to make some submissions on that, I will consider it, but I don’t think they are appropriate in the circumstances.
[88]         MR. KENT-SNOWSELL: I will seek instructions.
[89]         THE COURT: Thank you.

11 Year Old Successfully Sued Following School Ground Horseplay

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with fault for a school-ground injury.
In this week’s case (Gu v. Frisen) the 11 year old plaintiff was injured in 2008 when she was carrying a friend, piggyback-style, during recess.  At the same time the defendant pushed the girls, with no intetion of ill-will but rather “to make the girls laugh”.  Unfortunately the Plaintiff fell over and broke her arm.
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant, his parents and the School District.  The Claims were all dismissed except the claim against the 11 year old defendant.  In finding him legally responsible for the injury Mr. Justice Schultes provided the following reasons:
[23]         I am satisfied that Liam did not put his mind to the risk before he jogged up behind Elizabeth and pushed her. The question is whether, objectively viewed, he should have.
[24]         He was 11 years old at the time of this incident. There was no evidence that he was of less than normal intelligence for his age. As to his experience, making the assumption most favourable to his position, which is that comparing him to children of the same “experience” is broad enough to include his maturity and impulsivity, I think that a child with those similar attributes would still have foreseen that, if he were running at a fast jog, even the gentle pushing from behind of another child who was being carried piggyback risked both the top and bottom person falling over and being injured in some way in the fall. It is a matter of the physical reaction of human bodies to the application of force — a kind of knowledge that is acquired by all children on the playground at a very young age.
[25]         The fact that the injury to Jacqueline turned out to be more serious than a child in Liam’s circumstances might have anticipated does not undermine liability. Madam Justice Bennett summarized the applicable law in Hussack v. Chilliwack School District No. 33, 2011 BCCA 258, at para. 71:
[71]      It is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the precise injury or the full extent of the injury was reasonably foreseeable. What he must show is that the type or kind of injury was reasonably foreseeable:  Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] UKHL 1; Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council, [2000] UKHL 31; Ontario (Minister of Highways) v. Côté, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 595.
[26]         This mishap is unlike the rather freakish accidents in which the liability of older children and adolescents for negligence was denied, based on a lack of foreseeability, in McHale v. Watson (1966), 115 C.L.R. 199 (Aus. H.C.) (a thrown piece of welding rod ricocheting off a post) and Mullin v. Richards, [1998] 1 All E.R. 920 (C.A.) (a piece of a plastic ruler breaking off during play sword-fighting). In both cases, childish horseplay led to serious eye injuries, but the defendants’ original ill-advised actions set in motion further physical effects that the judges concluded could not have been anticipated.
[27]         This case, I have said, required only the rudimentary foresight that a person who is pushed from behind might fall over and in doing so get injured, something that was well within the capacities of a child in Liam’s situation.
[28]         As a result I find him liable for the accident