BC INJURY LAW – Page 19 – The MacIsaac Group of Law Firms

Motorist Found Fully Liable For Striking Cyclist in Dedicated Bike Lane

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 24, 2020. Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, discussing the duties of cyclists riding in dedicated bike lanes.

In today’s case (Charlton-Miner v. Hedgecock) the Plaintiff was travelling on a bicycle in a dedicated bike lane. As she approached an intersection that she was driving straight through the Defendant motorist approached from her rear and “turned across the plaintiff’s path, causing the right side of his vehicle to collide with the plaintiff’s left shoulder area and causing her to fall.” The Plaintiff’s bike lane was to the right of a designated right hand turn lane.

ICBC argued that the Defendant should not be at fault for striking the cyclist for a variety of reasons including that the cyclist should have had a rear view mirror and somehow reacted differently and further arguing that the cyclist should have left the dedicated bike lane and entered the lanes intended for vehicles to go through the intersection because the bike lane was to the right of a dedicated right hand turn lane. In rejecting these arguments and finding the motorist 100% at fault Mr. Justice Wilson provided the following reasons:

Court of Appeal Upholds Jury Chronic Pain Award Despite Inappropriate Submissions by Counsel

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 23, 2020. Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, Jury Trials.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Court of Appeal dismissing an application for a new trial following a jury award in a chronic pain case.

In today’s case (Brown v. Goodacre) the Plaintiff was injured in a rear end collision that the Defendant was liable for. The crash resulted in chronic pain and a jury awarded the plaintiff $847,000 in total damages.

The Defendant appealed seeking a new trial arguing plaintiff’s counsel made inappropriate submissions during the trial including

(i) personalizing the case by bringing himself into the opening statement and closing submissions;

(ii) giving his personal opinion on the issues, including putting his personal stamp of approval on the merits of his client’s case;

(iii) giving engineering evidence in the guise of a common sense observation; and

(iv) in one case, quoting a statement from a medical report that was not in evidence at trial.

The Court of Appeal noted that while some of the comments were not appropriate a failure to object during trial coupled with the trial judge’s caution to the jury about many of these comments meant no new trial was warranted. In reaching this decision the Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:

Mother Found 50% at Fault For Striking Her Son With Vehicle

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 22, 2020. Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing fault following the somewhat unusual fact pattern of a mother striking her own son with a vehicle.

In today’s case (Pringle v. Pringle) the Court described the circumstances and some of the evidence surrounding the collision as follows:

[2] The collision took place after midnight, in a roundabout driveway just outside Mr. Pringle’s apartment building. Mrs. Pringle had driven over to speak with Mr. Pringle. Mr. Pringle’s sister, Emily Pringle, accompanied her mother. The visit had not gone well. It ended when Mr. Pringle told his visitors to leave and threatened to call the police. They did as he asked, but Mrs. Pringle accidentally took Mr. Pringle’s keys with her when she left. They met in the driveway a short while later to return the keys.

[3] Immediately before the collision, Mrs. Pringle was at the wheel of her car with the ignition on. Emily was sitting in the front seat on the passenger side. Mr. Pringle was standing outside the car. Mr. Pringle and Mrs. Pringle were arguing through an open window.

[4] Mr. Pringle testifies that what happened next was that Mrs. Pringle began to drive away, circling the roundabout, while he was standing on the roadway. Mrs. Pringle was driving angrily and recklessly. When he realized that she was driving back towards him and was not going to veer away, he jumped and was hit by the moving car’s windshield.

The Court found both parties equally liable for the crash. In faulting both the driver and pedestrian Mr. Justice Gomery provided the following reasons:

Bus Driver Not Liable For Injuring Passengers By Braking Hard to Avoid Pedestrian

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 22, 2020. Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, dismissing a negligence claim against a bus driver whose hard braking injured several passengers.

In today’s case (Clarkson v Elding) multiple plaintiffs sued for damages following injuries sustained while passengers on a bus. The Defendant operator “braked suddenly to avoid a collision with a pedestrian who was jaywalking across East Hastings.” The resulting force of the braking “caused many passengers on the bus, including the plaintiffs, to fall or be slammed against seats and/or other passengers“.

The claims were dismissed with the court finding no negligence in these circumstances. In reaching this conclusion Madam Justice Horsman provided the following reasons:

ICBC Effort To Remove Case From Supreme Court Fails

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 18, 2020. Posted in Uncategorized.

While the BC Supreme Court Act allows parties to apply to transfer claims to small claims court such applications are rarely brought in personal injury claims where the quantum of claims can vary widely based on how evidence unfolds.

Today reasons for judgment were published by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, hearing and rejecting such an application brought by ICBC.

In today’s case (Herrera v. Miller) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages. After examinations for discovery the Defendant brought an application to move the case to small claims court arguing the damages could not exceed the limit of that court because the collision was “relatively minor, that the plaintiff suffered insignificant injuries for which he received very little treatment, and that the injuries did not seriously affect the plaintiff’s enjoyment of recreational and sporting activities, or his employment“.

The Plaintiff opposed pointing to recent case law for injuries similar to his with quantum assessments in excess of the small claims court jurisdiction. In dismissing the application, ordering costs payable to the plaintiff and finding the claim could stay in Supreme Court Mr. Justice Giaschi provided the following reasons:

Single Minister’s Certificate Sufficient Under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 16, 2020. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the needed form and contents of a Minster’s certificate to recover health care costs in a Plaintiff’s tort action.

In this week’s case (Woo v. Creme De La Crumb Bakeshop & Catering Ltd).the plaintiff fell from a ladder while working at premises leased by the defendant, resulting in “catastrophic injuries”. At trial the Plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $340,000 but then reduced by 50% to reflect an equal apportionment of liability between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The Plaintiff also sought to recovery Ministry expenses pursuant to the Health Care Costs Recovery Act but the Defendant objected arguing that the Minister’s certificate presented to the court was deficient suggesting that the legislation requires separate certificates to address the types of health care costs being claimed and their costs. In rejecting this argument and finding a single certificate is sufficient under the legislation Mr. Justice Skolrood provided the following reasons:

Rec Legaue Hockey Bodycheck Results in $702,551 Damage Award

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 15, 2020. Posted in Uncategorized.

Although infrequent, Canadian courts have occasionally imposed civil and even criminal liability following injuries at sporting events. The latest such case was published this week out of Ontario.

In the recent case (Casterton v. MacIsaac) the Plaintiff successfully sued the Defendant after suffering injuries in a hockey game.

The parties were playing in a recreational senior hockey league. It was a no contact league though incidental contact was part of the game. The plaintiff accepted that accidental contact was part of the risk of playing. Blindside hits, however, were absolutely prohibited and the Court accepted that such hits were not consented to either expressly or implicitly as part of playing.

The Defendant collided with the Plaintiff resulting in fairly severe injury. He was initially charged criminally with assault for the incident. He was convicted but his conviction was overturned on appeal and the charge was ultimately stayed.

In the civil lawsuit the Court heard conflicting evidence but ultimately found that the Defendant was liable as the contact was from a prohibited blindside hit. The collision caused the Plaintiff to suffer a concussion, two broken teeth and various cuts. Damages of over $700,000 were assessed comprised of $63,000 in general damages, $199,512 in past lost income, and $440,039 in future income loss.

In imposing liability from the body check Justice Sally Gomery made the following findings and provided the below reasons:

$90,000 Non Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic, Partly Limiting Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 9, 2020. Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries following a vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Lewis v. Wang) the Plaintiff was involved in an intersection collision in 2014. The Defendant denied fault until shortly before trial .

The Court accepted the collision caused chronic soft tissue injuries which were expected to continue into the future and were partly limiting. The Defendant called medical evidence minimizing the collison’s connections to the injuries but this was rejected. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 Mr. Justice Macintosh provided the following reasons:

$110,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Thoracic Outlet Syndrome and Chronic Pain

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 8, 2020. Posted in ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for injuries sustained in multiple vehicle collisions.

In today’s case (Winick v. Goddard) the Plaintiff was involved in 3 collisions. The Defendants admitted fault for all. The collisions resulted in chronic soft tissue injuries and thoracic outlet syndrome. Her symptoms were found to be likely permanent, partly disabling and not to improve significantly in the future. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $110,000 Mr. Justice Branch provided the following reasons:

$229K in Damages Awarded for “Relentless” and “Extensive” Internet Defamation Postings

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 3, 2020. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were released earlier this year (and published this week) by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding just over $229,000 in damages to a Plaintiff on the receiving end of a “relentless” and “extensive” on line defamation campaign.

In today’s case (Rook v. Halcrow) the parties were involved in a romantic relationship. Shortly after it came to an end several on line postings were published across multiple platforms making disparaging remarks about the Plaintiff.

The Defendant denied making the multiple postings but the Court rejected this and found her liable for them. In assessing general damages at $175,000, aggravated damages at $25,000 and further awarding special damages related to the Plaintiff hiring a reputation management company to remove the posts Mr. Justice Myers provided the following reasons: