Skip to main content

Joining 2 Separate ICBC Claims for Trial at the Same Time

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 123 Comments on Joining 2 Separate ICBC Claims for Trial at the Same Time

If you are involved in 2 separate car accidents and start 2 separate Injury Claims in the BC Supreme Court is it possible to have the trials heard at the same time?
The answer is yes and such applications are governed by BC Supreme Court Rule 5(8) which states that “proceedings may be consolidated at any time by order of the court or may be ordered to be tried at the same time or on the same day“.
Today reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court (Miclash v. Yan) considering an application under Rule 5(8).  In granting the Plaintiff’s request to have multiple claims heard at the same time Master Keighley concisely set out the principles to be considered in these applications.  The Court summarized the law as follows:

[15] The application is brought pursuant to Rule 5(8) of the Rules of Court…

[16] The order sought is discretionary.

[17] Exercise of this discretion is governed by the principles set out in the decision of Master Kirkpatrick, as she then was, in the case of Merritt v. Imasco Enterprises Inc. (1992), 2 C.P.C. (3d) 275 at para. 18 and 19:

18.       None of the submissions of counsel address the real issue to be determined. That is, are the issues raised by the pleadings sufficiently similar to warrant the order sought and will the order make sense in the circumstances? An application to have actions tried at the same time thus requires an examination of circumstances which may be of a more general nature than is made under R. 27 or 19.

19.       I accept that the foundation of an application under R. 5(8) is, indeed, disclosed by the pleadings. The examination of the pleadings will answer the first question to be addressed: do common claims, disputes and relationships exist between the parties? But the next question which one must ask is: are they “so interwoven as to make separate trials at different times before different judges undesirable and fraught with problems and economic expense”? Webster v. Webster (1979), 12 B.C.L.R. 172 at 182, 10 R.F.L. (2d) 148, 101 D.L.R. (3d) 248 (C.A.). That second question cannot, in my respectful view, be determined solely by reference to the pleadings. Reference must also be made to matters disclosed outside the pleadings:

(1)        Will the order sought create a saving in pre-trial procedures, (in particular, pre-trial conferences)?;

(2)        Will there be a real reduction in the number of trial days taken up by the trials being heard at the same time?;

(3)        What is the potential for a party to be seriously inconvenienced by being required to attend a trial in which that party may have only a marginal interest?; and

(4)        Will there be a real saving in experts’ time and witness fees?

This is in no way intended to be an exhaustive list. It merely sets out some of the factors which, it seems to me, ought to be weighed before making an order under R. 5(8).

[18] To these considerations, Master Joyce, as he then was, added two more in the case of Shah v. Bakken, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2836, 20 B.C.L.R. (3d) 393, at para. 15:

Other factors which in my view can be added to the foregoing list are:

(5)  Is one of the actions at a more advanced stage than the other? See: Forestral Automation Ltd. v. RMS Industrial Controls Inc. et al. (No.2), unreported, March 6, 1978, No. C765633/76, Vancouver (B.C.S.C.).

(6)  Will the order result a delay of the trial of one of the actions and, if so, does any prejudice which a party may suffer as a result of that delay outweigh the potential benefits which a combined trial might otherwise have?

In my continued effort to cross reference civil procedure cases with the new BC Supreme Court Rules which will take effect on July 1, 2010 Rule 5(8) is replicated in full under the New Rules and can be found at Rule 22-5(8).  Accordingly, the principles set out above will likely continue to be useful in considering similar applications once the new rules come into force.

More on ICBC Injury Claims and Pre Trial Discovery – XFD's and Requests for Particulars

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure. 1 Comment on More on ICBC Injury Claims and Pre Trial Discovery – XFD's and Requests for Particulars

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry dealing with 2 types of pre-trial discovery procedures utilized in the Supreme Court, the scope of examination for discovery questions and requests for particulars.
In today’s case (Gulamani v. Chandra) the Plaintiff alleged injury from 2 motor vehicle collisions some 10 years apart.  The Defendant put together a rather ‘boilerplate’ statement of defence which alleged, amongst other things that the Plaintiff was injured in previous and/or subsequent incidents, that the Plaintiff failed to follow medical advice, that the Plaintiff failed to take appropriate medications and that the plaintiff  did not return to work when she reasonably could have.
The Plaintiff’s lawyer brought an application that the Defence lawyer provide better particulars of these allegations (these types of boilerplate allegations are very typical in Statements of Defence filed in BC Personal Injury Actions).
In granting the Plaintiff’s request for further particulars Madam Justice Arnold-Bailey summarized and applied the law as follows:

[27] The court has the discretion, under Rule 19(16), to order a party to deliver better and further particulars of a matter stated in a pleading, provided that the party seeking that order has demanded them in writing from the other party, as required by Rule 19(17).

[28] It is clear from the case law that the decision to order particulars is extremely discretionary and heavily fact dependent.

[29] Considering the cases provided by counsel on this issue, my view is that the request for particulars is very similar to the previously granted request for further particulars made by counsel for the plaintiff of the Chandra defendants.  Here, as in that motion, what has been provided is so broadly worded and generic that it tells the plaintiff virtually nothing as to the true nature of the case she has to meet with regards to her alleged congenital defects or diseases prior to or post-accident, or regarding aspects of her alleged failure to mitigate.  Such broadly worded statements are particularly problematic in the present case because of the plaintiff’s extensive history of medical treatment over the past 12 years, since the injuries allegedly sustained in the first accident are said to overlap with the injuries sustained in the second accident with the defendant.

[30] I do not find the decisions in Fireside or Hoy provided by counsel for the defendant to be of assistance in this case.  While they are both examples of cases in which particulars were not ordered, they are both easily distinguishable from the case at bar.  Hoy deals with specifics on standard of care in a class action matter, where significant particulars had already been provided.  Fireside was a case where more than a generic particular had already been provided to the plaintiff.  In the case at bar there have been no particulars provided at all with regard to the broad claims contained in the statement of defence.

[31] The Court of Appeal clearly stated the function of particulars in Cansulex Ltd. v. Perry, [1982] B.C.J. No. 369 (C.A.) [Cansulex], where Lambert J.A., for the court, described their use at para. 15:

(1)        to inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet as distinguished from the mode in which that case is to be proved;

(2)        to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at the trial;

(3)        to enable the other side to know what evidence they ought to be prepared with and to prepare for trial;

(4)        to limit the generality of the pleadings;

(5)        to limit and decide the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is required; and

(6)        to tie the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not to be included.

[32] I now turn to the specific point set out in para. 15 of Cansulex that particulars are designed “to inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet”.  In my view, the statements made in the statement of defence are not sufficient to enable the plaintiff to know the case she must meet.

[33] Considering further the points contained in para. 15 of Cansulex, in this case I find that if further and better particulars are not provided by the defendant as to how to the plaintiff failed to mitigate her losses generally as claimed and with regards to her alleged failing to take reasonable steps to return to work, failing to follow medical advice and failing to follow exercise advice, then if there is any substance to these claims, it is likely she will be taken by surprise at trial.  The same may be said with regards to any other incidents or congenital defects or diseases that the defendant alleges caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

[34] I turn to additional points set out at para. 15 of Cansulex, requiring that the particulars must “enable the other side to know what evidence they ought to be prepared with and to prepare for trial”.  Based on what has been provided to date to the plaintiff, I do not see how proper trial preparation could be done.

[35] With regards to the further points from para. 15 of Cansulex regarding the purpose of particulars, “to limit and generality of pleadings” and “to limit and decide the issues to be tried”, once apprised of her alleged failure to mitigate the plaintiff will be able to take steps to collect the relevant evidence with regard to the specific failures or conduct alleged.  As indicated, the alleged overlap between the plaintiff’s injuries from the first accident in June 1997 to the alleged injuries from the second accident in July 2007, add considerable additional factual complexity.

[36] Regarding the final point in Cansulex at para. 15, that particulars serve to “tie the hands of the party so he cannot, without leave, go into any matters not included”, I find that there is considerable benefit to all parties in these actions to be tried together in the upcoming 30 day trial to properly identify and limit such claims.

[37] When considering an application for the delivery of further and better particulars, Bouck J. made a comment in Cominco Ltd. v. Westinghouse Can. Ltd. (1978), 6 B.C.L.R. 25 at 27 (S.C.). at paras. 7-8, which I consider to be relevant to the present application, namely:

Occasionally parties can get caught up in the fascination of the interlocutory process and lose sight of the fact that some day the matter must go to trial even though a “perfect” framework does not exist for its presentation.  Sometimes as well one side or the other is merely replying to the overzealousness of his opponent and motions or their opposition are meant to let one another know it will be a long hard fight.

I mean no criticism of counsel by these remarks.  They are honestly trying to pursue every recourse for the benefit of their respective clients.  That is their right and their duty.

[38] For these reasons the plaintiff’s application for further particulars is granted.

The second pre-trial procedure dealt with in today’s case was the scope of examination for discovery questions.  On examination the Plaintiff’s lawyer asked the Defendant to provide his cell phone records (to help prove or disprove that he was on the phone at the moment of impact), to provide the names of “liability and damage witnesses and contact information”.  In holding that these are proper discovery questions Madam Justice Arnold Bailey applied and summarize the law as follows:

[39] With respect to question (a) and the demand for cellular phone records, Rule 27(20) states that “a person to be examined for discovery… shall produce for inspection on the examination all documents in his or her possession or control not privileged, relating to the matters in question in the action”.

[40] Liability is at issue and the potential for the cellular phone records to indicate whether the defendant was using his phone at the time of the accident does exist.  Although not referred to any authorities by counsel, I note that there are several cases where cellular phone records have been referred to as to whether a person was using the cellular phone at the time of the accident.  One such case is Abay v. Keung, 2006 BCSC 1236, in which the plaintiff testified that the defendant had been using a cellular phone at the time of the accident, and the defendant denied doing so.  The defendant there had also refused to divulge his cellular phone records on examination for discovery.  There is no record of a demand being made for those records.  In that case, Cohen J. found, at para. 73, “although I find that the defendant had a cell phone in his vehicle, I cannot conclude that the defendant was talking on the cell phone at the time of the collision, as there is strongly conflicting evidence on this point”.  Cohen J. did not comment on the lack of records as affecting credibility or believability of the defendant.

[41] Conversely, in Zubko v. Ezaki, 2002 BCSC 1894, the defendant produced her cellular phone records to prove conclusively that she was not speaking on her phone at the time of the accident, as was alleged by the plaintiff.

[42] While I agree with the submission on behalf of the defendant that the phone records will not necessarily show with certainty whether the defendant was talking on the phone at the time of the accident, it seems that those records are within the scope of Rule 27(20) insofar as they relate to the matters in question in the action, namely liability for the motor vehicle accident.  It is entirely possible that the records will prove to have little weight at trial, but that is irrelevant to what is required by Rule 27(20).  Accordingly, I order the defendant to provide the answers to questions 68 – 71 of the examination for discovery, including providing his cell phone records for the day of the accident.

[43] With regard to question (b) and the names and contact information of liability and damage witness names, I agree with the reasoning in Sovani, at para. 3, where Paris J. held “Rule 27(22) means just what it says, namely, that the names and addresses of such persons must be disclosed if requested and the fact that a person’s knowledge relates only to the issue of damages does not safeguard the names from disclosure”.  Accordingly, I order the defendant to answer question 276 and as posed on p. 63 of the examination for discovery.

Lastly, since this is a case dealing with Civil Procedure, it is my practice to check if this case will remain a useful precedent when the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules come into effect in July, 2010.  The answer is probably yes as the current Rule 19(16)(17) which the court relied on in its order for further particulars remains intact under the new rules and can be found at Rule 3-7(22).

With respect to the order addressing examinations for discovery, this case relied on Rule 27(20) which remains largely intact under the new Supreme Court Rules and can be found at Rule 7-2(16).  While the new rule seems to have some restrictions to it not present in the current rule the same result should arguably apply as the rule for production of relevant documents at the discovery will continue to apply to “a person for whose immediate benefit an action is..defended” as set out in Rule 7-2(6).

$40,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Knee and Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Knee Injury Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 63 Comments on $40,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Knee and Soft Tissue Injuries

Adding to this “pain and suffering case-law database” reasons for judgement were released today dealing with damages for a knee injury and soft tissue injuries sustained in a BC Car Crash.
In today’s case (Hill v. Durham), the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 rear end accident.  The Plaintiff was a passenger at the time and the issue of liability (fault) was admitted at trial.  The trial focused on the extent of the Plaintiff’s accident related injuries and their value.  In total, damages of just over $77,000 were awarded including an award of $40,000 for non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life).
In arriving at this figure Mr. Justice Barrow summarized the Plaintiff’s accident related injuries and prognosis for these as follows:
[22] Dr. McKenzie saw Ms. Hill in early October 2006. In his consultation report of October 12, 2006 he wrote that Ms. Hill’s problem seemed to be localized to a particular tendon in the knee and he thought that it may be the “result of trauma during the motor vehicle accident”. He prescribed exercises and ordered some further diagnostic imaging. An MRI was performed in January 2007 and it revealed two things:  thinning of the patellar cartilage in the knee joint and greater than normal water content in one of the bones, a condition technically described as subchondrial bone marrow edema. Dr. McKenzie testified that edema such as that found in Ms. Hill’s knee is caused by one of two things:  trauma or excessive wear and tear. When it is caused by excessive wear and tear it is accompanied by other findings visible on x-ray. Those other findings were not present in Ms. Hill’s knee, and as a result Dr. McKenzie concluded that the edema she is experiencing is as a result of trauma. He noted that Ms. Hill’s left knee has neither of the conditions. He testified that the degree of trauma necessary to cause this condition would “not be trivial”. He said that the problems are consistent with the kind of trauma that might be sustained by hitting a knee on the dash in motor vehicle accident…

25]         To a degree the resolution of this issue and other issues turns on the reliability and credibility of Ms. Hill. In general I found Ms. Hill to be a careful and credible witness. She testified that she had experienced bumps, bruises and injuries of various kinds over the course of her life. She said that she had always recovered reasonably quickly and completely from these events. She expected to do likewise following this accident. In general she impressed me as someone not prone to dwell on or overstate her physical problems. I accept that she now believes she struck her knee in the collision, although she has reached that conclusion not because she specifically remembers doing so but rather on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. She testified almost in passing that at one of her first yoga classes, within a month of the motor vehicle accident, she told her teacher that she was experiencing difficulties with her right knee. I accept her evidence on that point, and accept that she became aware of the discomfort in her knee reasonably shortly after the accident. Further, I am satisfied that she did not strike her knee after the accident in a manner that would give rise to the condition Dr. McKenzie found. I think it more likely than not that, as Dr. McKenzie noted, Ms. Hill was experiencing a number of more significant pains in the immediate aftermath of the collision and it was only as those pains subsided and her activity level increased that she became aware of the difficulty in her right knee.

[26]         I am satisfied that Ms. Hill’s right knee problems are caused by the motor vehicle accident.

[27]         The prognosis for this injury is guarded. Dr. McKenzie’s opinion is that the condition is often chronic. In February 2007 he prescribed a knee brace for use when exercising in a way that strains the knee. In his opinion, Ms. Hill may require renewals of that brace as well as periodic support from physiotherapists and medications for pain and inflammation. Ms. Hill reported to Dr. Dodek in October 2008 that her knee symptoms were improving.

[28]         Ms. Hill’s other injury is to the soft tissues of her back. She has headaches secondary to that injury. In his October 28, 2008 report, Dr. Dodek expressed the view that her “long term prognosis for recovery…remains good” notwithstanding that almost three years had passed since the accident. Dr. Travlos, in his November 1, 2007 report, wrote that Ms. Hill’s headaches would continue to reduce in frequency and would likely return to their pre?accident level. As to her right mid and low back difficulties, he expressed no opinion on future prognosis. He did, however, encourage Ms. Hill to add cycling to her exercise program and to reduce her reliance on physiotherapy. He also thought that her consumption of over-the-counter analgesics could and should be reduced. Dr. Apel, in her September 12, 2008 report, concluded that the prognosis for complete recovery is guarded however the prognosis for significant symptom reduction is fair to good. In her view, Ms. Hill’s current exercise program is insufficient and with appropriate changes, including increased focus on stretching, she will experience further symptom reduction…

[34]         Turning to the authorities, the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in Menhinick, Wery, and Houghton (Litigation Guardian of), are generally similar to those suffered by Ms. Hill. The prognosis for each of those plaintiffs, however, was more guarded than I find is the case for Ms. Hill. The injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in the other authorities cited by counsel for Ms. Hill are all significantly more serious. On the other hand, I am satisfied that Ms. Hill’s injuries are more significant than those suffered by the plaintiffs in Krogh and Job.

[35]         In summary, Ms. Hill suffered a moderate soft tissue injury to her back. That injury remains problematic almost four years after the accident. I am satisfied that it will continue to improve. Her knee injury is less painful but is likely to last longer, if not indefinitely. Based on all of the evidence and a consideration of all of the authorities cited by counsel, I find that the appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $40,000. Although not asked to, I would allocate that award $25,000 to the back injury and $15,000 to the knee injury. I have not reduced the award to account for Ms. Hill’s pre?existing knee problems because I am satisfied they would not interfere in any significant way with her recreational and other activities.

Another Rule 37B Case – Plaintiff Awarded Trial Costs Despite not Beating Defence Offer

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Civil Procedure, Jury Trials, Uncategorized. 49 Comments on Another Rule 37B Case – Plaintiff Awarded Trial Costs Despite not Beating Defence Offer

(Please note the case discussed in this post was overturned on Appeal, you can click here for an updated post and click hear to read the BC Court of Appeal decision)
Reasons for judgement were released today dealing with costs consequences under Rule 37B.
Although Rule 37B has some flexibility to its outcomes, normally when a Plaintiff fails to beat a defence formal settlement offer after trial the Plaintiff is deprived of his/her costs and the Defendant is awarded theirs.  Today’s case had a result which departs from this norm.
In today’s case (Gehlen v. Rana) the Plaintiff was injured when she was a passenger involved in a rear-end car crash.  The Defendant admitted fault for the crash but denied liability to the Plaintiff claiming that the Plaintiff “was not present in the vehicle at the time of the accident“.  The Defendant made a formal offer to settle the Plaintiff’s claim for $22,000 plus disbursements.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and went to trial.  After trial the Jury awarded the Plaintiff total damages of just over $13,000.
The Plaintiff brought a motion for her costs and the Defendant brought a counter motion for their costs from the time of the offer onward.  Mr. Justice Leask held that the Plaintiff should be awarded her full costs, even for steps taken after the formal settlement offer despite not beating the offer.  His reasoning was as follows:

[18]         As to s-s. (d), I consider two other factors to be relevant.  First, the defendant’s choice of trial by jury, which considerably increases the costs.  Second, the manner in which the defence was conducted – to accuse the plaintiff and her family of fraud – that accusation having been rejected by the jury.

[19]         Turning last to s-s. (a) – the most important question – whether the offer was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted.  On this issue, I agree with Goepel J.’s judgment in A.E. v. D.W.J., 2009 BCSC 505, at paragraph 55:

[55]      … this analysis is not one to be done based on hindsight once the final result is known.  The reasonableness of the plaintiff’s decision not to accept the offer to settle must be assessed without reference to the court’s decision.

[20]         I am satisfied that the defendant’s denial of liability, and the allegations of fraud that underlay that denial, dominated the plaintiff’s thinking at the time the offer to settle was made and, indeed, throughout the entire pre-trial period.  Knowing that her claim was not fraudulent and knowing the persuasive evidence she had to rebut the allegation of fraud, the plaintiff thought she had a good answer to the defendant’s “low ball” offer to settle.  With hindsight, it is obvious that her counsel did not anticipate the defendant’s vigorous attack on her credibility including the detailed attack on her employment resumé and the emphasis on her second accident.  Her counsel’s trial preparation did not include preparing her or her witnesses for these issues.  However, analyzing the plaintiff’s decision not to accept the defendant’s offer to settle without the benefit of hindsight, I am satisfied that it was not an offer that ought reasonably to have been accepted.

[21]         Analyzing all the Rule 37B(6) factors, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment under Rule 37B(5)(c) and is entitled “in respect of all … of the steps taken in the proceeding after the date of delivery … of the offer to settle, costs to which the party would have been entitled had the offer not been made” (emphasis added).

I turn now to the plaintiff’s submission for 1.5 times Scale B costs because of the allegation of fraud made by the defendant and the manner in which those allegations were pursued at trial.  Having taken that factor into account in my analysis of Rule 37B(6), I believe it would represent a form of “double counting” to award increased costs for this factor.  My conclusion is that the plaintiff is entitled to her costs and reasonable disbursements of the entire proceeding on Scale B.

$25,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages Awarded in Low Velocity Impact

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 1 Comment on $25,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages Awarded in Low Velocity Impact

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday (Boyd v. Shortreed) by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dealing with a Low Velocity Impact (LVI).  The Plaintiff testified that she was involved in a rear-end crash and that she was injured despite having minimal damage to her vehicle.  Interestingly, the Defendant denied that the crash happened at all.
Mr. Justice Harvey rejected the Defendant’s evidence and concluded that a crash did occur.  Specifically he held that:
[33] The plaintiff reported the accident on April 19, 2005 by telephone and advised the adjuster for ICBC of the damage to her vehicle and the fact she had been injured.  Without first bringing the vehicle to ICBC, she took the car to an auto body shop for repairs and the bumper was fixed.  She testifies that the total cost of repairs was about $360.  No documentary evidence concerning the repairs was ever produced in evidence.  Photographs of the rear bumper of the plaintiff’s vehicle were of little assistance in determining whether there was any damage visible.  It is conceded that the damage amounted to nothing more than an abrasion or scratch requiring repainting.  There was no structural damage to the plaintiff’s car…

[59] There were other inconsistencies in the evidence of the defendant which cause me to reject his evidence as to the happening of the incident.  Accordingly, wherever the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant conflict, I accept the evidence of the plaintiff as being the accurate version of events.

[60] That being found, I conclude that the defendant struck the plaintiff’s car from the rear.  While I accept there was a situation of peril created by the driver of the tractor trailer, the proximate cause of the collision between the defendant’s vehicle and that of the plaintiff was the inattention of the defendant by travelling too close to the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle or, alternatively, the condition of the brakes on his vehicle which did not allow him to slow his vehicle in time to avoid hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle.

[61] I do not find the plaintiff’s reaction to the danger created by the tractor trailer driver to be wanting and decline to apportion any fault for the accident to her.  She reacted appropriately to a situation of emergency created by another driver who is not a party to the action.

[62] As a result, the defendant is 100% liable for the collision and resultant damages.

In valuing the Plaintiff’s Non-Pecuniary Damages at $25,000 Mr. Justice Harvey made the following findings with respect to her accident related injuries:

[76] The only new complaint arising from the accident appears to be the onset of mid-back pain.  This is based mainly on self report.  The extent and duration of these symptoms are described in some detail in the reports of Dr. O’Connor and Dr. McKenzie.  This complaint seems to have occasioned the most pain and has persisted, although significantly improved, to the date of trial.  Her recovery was estimated by the plaintiff to be at 85% of normal when she last attended Dr. McKenzie in August 2009.  There is no ongoing disability related to the complaints nor has there been for some since late in 2007.

[77] In summary, the plaintiff suffered an exacerbation of her previous symptoms in her neck and lower back.  I find these complaints had substantially resolved to their pre-accident condition inside of one year.  In April of 2006, according to the notes of Dr. Shah, there was a further onset of lower back pain but, on the whole of the evidence, I cannot relate this flare up to the accident of April 2005.  The injury to her mid-back was as a result of the accident.  It persisted longer and caused her more discomfort than the exacerbation of her pre-existing symptoms.

[78] Accordingly, taking all of this into account, I assess general damages in the amount of $25,000 in respect of her soft tissue injuries.

$95,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Pain From 2 MVA's

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 53 Comments on $95,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Pain From 2 MVA's

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday dealing with an appropriate award of damages for soft tissue injuries and chronic pain lasting for over 6 years.
In yesterday’s case (Gosal v. Singh) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 BC Car Crashes.  The first in 2003, the second in 2005. The first crash was a rear end collision.  Fault was admitted.  As the Plaintiff was recovering from her injuries from the first collision she was involved in the second collision.
The second crash happened when the Defendant, who was parked, pulled out in front of the Plaintiff’s lane of travel.  Fault was not admitted but Madam Justice Loo held that the defendant was 100% at fault finding that he “moved his vehicle from a parked position without first determining that he could do so safely, and that (the Plaintiff) had no opportunity to avoid the collision.”
The Plaintiff suffered from various soft tissue injuries and chronic pain which lasted for over 6 years and still bothered the Plaintiff by the time of trial.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $95,000 Madam Justice Loo made the following findings:

[49] Ms. Gosal suffered mild to moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck, upper back, shoulders, and mid and lower back, which caused severe headaches. She was treated with physiotherapy, massage, and chiropractic treatments, but her recovery took longer because of her depression and anxiety. She was recovering when the second accident exacerbated her injuries, including her depression and anxiety.

[50] Dr. Khunkhun states that Ms. Gosal’s long-term prognosis is guarded because her symptoms have not resolved after such a long period of time since the accidents. She does not consider Ms. Gosal to be at an increased risk of any long-term sequelae such as osteoarthritis. She believes Ms. Gosal would continue to benefit from body conditioning and strengthening exercises. She observed that in the past Ms. Gosal benefitted from regular exercise and when she stops exercising regularly, her mood deteriorates and her pain increases.

[51] Dr. Manchanda last saw Ms. Gosal on September 24, 2008. She told him that she had pain on about four or five days a week, and no pain on about two days a week. She was still looking for employment in counselling. At that time, Dr. Manchanda felt that Ms. Gosal could work in a job that was sedentary or involved light physical duties. He also felt that Ms. Gosal could complete the majority of her household chores, but that she might require a break or assistance with the heavier chores, such as vacuuming or carrying heavy laundry.

[52] Dr. Manchanda’s prognosis has thus far proved to be accurate. Ms. Gosal has worked full-time since October 6, 2008 in a job that is fairly sedentary and involves only light physical duties. There is no evidence that she has taken time off work because of symptoms arising from the accidents…

[67] I prefer Dr. Sandhu’s opinion that Ms. Gosal is not seeking secondary gains. She was looking after the household and her children’s needs as best she could, and doing her best to continue with her studies. Having observed Ms. Gosal, and on all the evidence, I conclude that she is not malingering and that her complaints of pain and depression are genuine.

[68] She continues to improve, albeit slowly. I find that there are two to three days a week when she is not in pain. Full-time employment has assisted her both physically and emotionally. Though it is now more than six years since the first accident, and more than four years since the second accident, she still suffers from depression and pain. I anticipate that over the next few years, with a regular daily exercise program, her physical pain and depression will continue to improve but may not resolve completely.

[71] I find that circumstances of Ms. Gosal’s injuries are similar to those in Foran v. Nguyen, 2006 BCSC 605, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 419, where the award for non-pecuniary damages was $90,000, and Jackson v. Lai, 2007 BCSC 1023, 160 A.C.W.S. (3d) 276, where the award was $100,000.

[72] I consider an award of $95,000 for non-pecuniary damages to be appropriate.

In addition to this case’s value as a precedent for valuing non-pecuniary damages for chronic pain, this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s criticism of the expert witness called by the defense.

I’ve previously written about the duty of experts to the court and highlighted judicial criticism when experts ignore this duty.  In today’s case the court made critical findings with respect to Dr. Hymie Davis, a psychiatrist who billed over $290,000 to ICBC in 2008.  Specifically Madam Justice Loo found that Dr. Davis “was presenting a case for the defence rather than providing an impartial expert opinion.  Dr. Davis’ argument that (the Plaintiff’s) injuries should have healed and that she is seeking secondary gains or malingering, is at odds with his article “The Whiplash Injury“.

ICBC Injury Claims and Your Privacy: The Implied Undertaking of Confidentiality

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Privacy Issues. 46 Comments on ICBC Injury Claims and Your Privacy: The Implied Undertaking of Confidentiality

When you sue for damages in the BC Supreme Court in an ICBC Injury Claim you are subject to certain rules of compelled disclosure.  These rules require you to give verbal, documentary and even physical discovery (independent medical exams).
When ICBC gets access to this private information in the lawsuit process it is subject to an “implied undertaking of confidentiality“.  What this means is this information is not to be used by ICBC for purposes outside of the lawsuit.
If you have a further ICBC Claim involving similar injuries making the previous records relevant, can ICBC provide these records to their lawyer to be used against you in a subsequent claim?  Reasons for judgement were released today addressing this issue and the answer is no, at least not without your consent or a court order.
In today’s case (Chonn v. DCRS Canada Corp dba Mercedez-Benz Credit Canada) the Plaintiff had a history of ICBC Injury Claims.  In the most recent claim the Defence Lawyer gathered documents from the previous claims and intended to use them in the current lawsuit.  The Plaintiff objected to this.  A motion was brought before the BC Supreme Court and Mr. Justice Voith was asked to decide whether “the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”), which, by operation of statute, had conduct of the defence of each of the Earlier Actions and has conduct of the Current Action, can list the documents it obtained from the plaintiff in the Earlier Actions without first obtaining the plaintiff’s consent or leave of the court.”
In answering this question Mr. Justice Voith summarized the law behind the “implied undertaking of confidentiality” and set out the limits of ICBC’s use of records in subsequent claims.  The highlights of the decisions are set out below:

[25] A party who has documents from earlier litigation that are impressed with the implied undertaking simply cannot make use of those documents without the concurrence of the party from whom they were obtained or leave of the court. The implied undertaking protects documents or oral discovery obtained in earlier litigation from being used for any purpose “collateral” to that litigation. Thus, the documents cannot be used for internal strategic review in subsequent litigation. They cannot be used for the purposes of drafting pleadings. They cannot be sent to counsel for the purposes of obtaining an opinion in new litigation. All of these obligations bound the named defendants in the Current Action as well as ICBC in its conduct of that litigation.

[39] Once one recognizes that a central focus of the implied undertaking rule is to prevent the use of documents in subsequent litigation without consent or leave of the court, it is not sound to assert that Rule 26 displaces the application of the implied undertaking rule. Rule 26 is a rule of broad application and it governs virtually all civil actions. There are like provisions in most other jurisdictions. The result advanced by the defendants would significantly curtail the efficacy and ambit of the rule.

[40] The submission of the defendants would also significantly erode both policy objectives underlying the rule. It would impair the privacy interests of the party to the earlier action who made disclosure and gave discovery evidence. It would also subvert the policy objective of encouraging parties to “provide a more complete and candid discovery” referred to inJuman at para. 26.

[41] The intended purview of the “statutory exceptions” rule which is referenced by the Court in Juman, is limited to specific legislation which compels disclosure and which expressly overrides the privilege and/or confidentiality concerns of the holder of the information. Rule 26 does not achieve these objects. Though it requires disclosure from parties to litigation, both Rule 26(2) and the structure of Form 93 recognize the ongoing entitlement of a party to maintain a claim for privilege. While documents covered by an implied undertaking are not, strictly speaking, privileged, I believe that it would be appropriate for a party, from whom document disclosure is sought, to list those documents in its possession which are subject to an implied undertaking under part 3 of its list of documents.

This case also addressed the remedies available when there is a breach of an implied undertaking and these are worth reviewing for anyone interested in BC Privacy Law.

BC Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Expert Witness Cross Examination

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 115 Comments on BC Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Expert Witness Cross Examination

Reasons for judgement were released today addressing the permissible scope of Cross Examination of an expert witness in a BC Injury Claim.
In today’s case (MacEachern v. Rennie) the Defendants called a physician to give expert opinion evidence.  This physician happened to be a treating doctor of the Plaintiff’s prior to her injuries.  While testifying the doctor was taken through his clinical records by defence counsel on an entry by entry basis.  The doctor was asked what happened on each of those clinic visits and in canvassing this the doctor gave evidence about the prognosis and treatment of Hepatitis C (which is an area the doctor apparently was not called to address).
The Plaintiff then wished to cross examine the doctor about treatments and the prognosis for Hepatitis C.  The Defence lawyer objected to this on the basis that such a cross examination would “call for new opinion that are not admissible since the Plaintiff has not served the defendants with notice of those opinion“.
Mr. Justice Ehrcke swiftly rejected the Defendant’s objections noting that they could not restrict the cross examination on a topic which they chose to ask the doctor about in direct.  Specifically Mr. Justice Ehrcke noted as follows:

[11]         With respect to the first point, the CN Defendants argue that the notice which they served on the plaintiff in connection with Dr. Glynn-Morris contains only treatment opinions and does not touch on the area of the plaintiff’s Hepatitis C. This argument misses the mark. The plaintiff is entitled to respond to all the opinion evidence led by the CN Defendants, not just that which was contained in the written statement of Dr. Glynn-Morris’ opinion. It was counsel for the CN Defendants who chose in direct-examination to ask Dr. Glynn-Morris about testing of the plaintiff for Hepatitis C. It was in direct-examination that Dr. Glynn-Morris opined that in 30 percent of people, Hepatitis C cures itself and disappears, and that he ordered a test to see if that is what had happened in Ms. MacEachern’s case. Having opened up that area in examination-in-chief, the CN Defendants cannot now restrict the plaintiff’s cross-examination about it simply on the ground that it was not covered in the written statement that they had delivered to the plaintiff.

[12]         In any event, the proposed evidence is also truly responsive as a rebuttal to the opinion of another expert witness called by the CN defendants, Dr. Baker, whose report entered at Tab 1 of Exhibit 61 states:

I note Ms. MacEachern had already contracted hepatitis C which with her ongoing ingestion of multiple drugs would likely have progressed with liver damage and possible cirrhosis and eventual liver failure.

[13] Nevertheless, the CN Defendants argue that even if the proposed line of questioning did not require notice pursuant to the provisions of Rule 40A, notice was still required because of the case management order made in respect of this trial on February 6, 2009, which provided, among other things, that the plaintiff’s reply or rebuttal reports were to be delivered by January 29, 2009. The CN Defendants point out that Dr. Baker’s report was delivered to the plaintiff on December 1, 2008. They submit therefore that any opinion evidence in reply to Dr. Baker’s report should have been delivered to them by January 29, 2009.

[14]         The short answer to this argument is that the deadlines set out in the case management order relate to expert witnesses that each party proposed to call as witnesses in their own case. The order does not, by its terms, require a party to give notice of the questions it proposes to ask in cross-examination of another party’s witnesses, even if those questions in cross-examination have the effect of eliciting an expert rebuttal or reply opinion.

[15] The case of Canadian National Railway Company v. Canada, 2002 BCSC 1669, 8 B.C.L.R. (4th) 323 cited by the CN Defendants is distinguishable, because that case did not deal with the effect of a case management order on questions asked of an opposing witness in cross-examination.

[16] To summarize:  the questions that the plaintiff proposes to ask in cross-examination of Dr. Glynn-Morris are proper, and to the extent that they elicit expert opinions, those opinions are proper reply or rebuttal. Such reply or rebuttal opinions elicited in cross-examination are not subject to the notice requirements of Rule 40A, or of the case management orders that were made in this case.

ICBC Injury Claims and Effective Cross Examination

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today showing how an effective cross examination of a Defendant can make all the difference in the prosecution of an ICBC Injury Claim.
In today’s case (Mclaren v. Rice) the Plaintiff was involved in a single vehicle accident in February, 2005.  The Plaintiff was a passenger.  The Defendant lost control of the vehicle and left the roadway.  The Plaintiff was injured in this collision.  There were no witnesses to the crash itself and the Plaintiff’s injuries were so severe ( a closed head injury and a fractured skull) that he had no memory of the accident.  The Defendant denied that he was at fault for losing control of the vehicle.
Just because a driver loses control of a vehicle does not automatically make him at fault for the accident.  The Plaintiff still has to prove his/her case on a ‘balance of probabilities‘.   So how then, can a plaintiff with no memory of what happened, with no witnesses and with a defendant who denies wrongdoing prove his case?  Some of the tools that can be used are pre-trial discovery and cross examination.  Today’s case demonstrates that the lawyer involved effectively used these tools to prove that the Driver was responsible for losing control.

Mr. Justice Brooke found that the Defendant driver was at fault.  In reaching this conclusion the Court highlighted serious damage done to the Defendant’s position through cross-examination.  The Plaintiff’s lawyer was able to pick apart the Defendant’s in court evidence and the effect of this was a winning case for the Plaintiff.  Following the Defendant’s cross examination Mr. Justice Brooke reached the below conclusions about his credibility:

[24] There are significant inconsistencies and contradictions between the evidence given by Jacob Rice at trial and prior unsworn statements given by him and prior evidence given under oath. It is, of course, the evidence given at trial that I must assess, and those prior inconsistent statements go to the credibility of Mr. Jacob Rice. I find that Jacob Rice is an unreliable witness and that the inconsistencies and contradictions diminish such weight as his evidence might have had. I find that the events immediately preceding the accident are not clear in Jacob Rice’s mind because he was either asleep or inattentive as the truck proceeded across the oncoming lanes of traffic. There were no brake marks or any indication that evasive action was taken until the truck “hit the ditch”. I find that what Jacob Rice told ICBC in his statement taken on March 8, 2005, is likely what happened:

It was a pull to the left and then, I just hit the ditch and as we hit the ditch, I tried pulling it to the right and it lost control and, and spinning and from there, it just lost control.

(Emphasis Added)

[25] I find that Jacob Rice failed to apply the brakes in a timely fashion and that he failed to divert the course of the truck so as to avoid the accident which occurred. Whether he fell asleep or was merely momentarily inattentive, his conduct was negligent.

BC Personal Injury Law Round Up

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases. 50 Comments on BC Personal Injury Law Round Up

The volume of ICBC and other personal injury cases released by our Superior Courts over the past 2 days has been higher than usual so I present today’s BC Injury Law Update in a ‘round up‘ fashion.
The first case of note was from the BC Court of Appeal and dealt with limitations under the Local Government Act.  When suing a local government for damages a Plaintiff must comply with s. 286 of the Local Government Act which holds in part that a Plaintiff must give “notice in writing…within 2 months from the date on which the damage was sustained“.  Failure to comply with this section can be a bar to suing.  An exception to this limitation period, however, is contained in s. 286(3) which holds that:

(3)        Failure to give the notice or its insufficiency is not a bar to the maintenance of an action if the court before whom it is tried, or, in case of appeal, the Court of Appeal, believes

(a)        there was a reasonable excuse, and

(b)        the defendant has not been prejudiced in its defence by the failure or insufficiency.

Today the BC Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of what is a ‘reasonable excuse’.

In today’s case, Thauili v. Delta, the Plaintiff sued for injuries sustained while in a fitness class in a community center operated by Delta.  The Plaintiff did not give notice within the 2 months set out in s. 286 of the Local Government Act.  Delta brought a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim but this motion was dismissed.  Delta appealed to the BC Court of Appeal.  This too was dismissed and in so doing the BC Court of Appeal added clarity to the issues that can be considered when addressing a ‘reasobable excuse’ for not giving notice within the required 2 month period.  The highlights of this discussion were as follows:

[10] In Teller, a five-judge division of this Court considered the construction to be placed on the words “reasonable excuse”, taken in the context of s. 755 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290.  Section 755 contained the same notice requirement found in s. 286(1) of the Local Government Act as well as the same saving provision now found in s. 286(3).  Although not identically worded, there is no difference in substance between s. 755 of the Municipal Act and s. 286 of the Local Government Act.

[11] Teller did not propound a test to determine what constitutes “reasonable excuse”.  Rather, Teller instructs that “all matters put forward as constituting either singly or together a reasonable excuse must be considered.” (at 388)  The question is whether it is reasonable that the plaintiff be excused, having regard to all the circumstances.

[12] Teller expressly overruled those trial decisions which had excluded ignorance of the law as a factor to be considered in deciding whether there was reasonable excuse for the failure to give notice. …

[37] There can be no doubt that after its pronouncement, Teller became – and has remained – the governing authority on the construction of “reasonable excuse” found in the saving provision in s. 755 of the Municipal Act. …

[42] As to the purpose of the section, Southin J.A. said, at 383:

What then is the purpose of the section?  Clearly one of the purposes of the section is to enable a municipality to investigate a claim fully.  But that purpose is addressed by the second branch of the concluding sentence.  The only other purpose I can think of was to protect municipalities against stale claims in order to enable them to estimate their future liabilities and make budgetary provision for them.  But I know of no authority for that surmise. It really is difficult to make much sense out of the words “reasonable excuse” in the context….

43]         After considering the provenance of the section, the state of the law as revealed by the case authorities in 1957 when the provision was, in effect, newly enacted, and the case authorities, including Horie v. Nelson (1988), 20 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1, [1988] 2 W.W.R. 79 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 27 B.C.L.R. (2d) xxxv [Horie], Southin J.A. concluded, at 388:

[T]he maxim “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is not a rule of law determinative of an issue of statutory interpretation in every instance.

In the end, the question is simply what do the words at issue mean in the context.  In my opinion, ignorance of the law is a factor to be taken into account.  So for that matter is knowledge of the law. But all matters put forward as constituting either singly or together a reasonable excuse must be considered.

Those decisions of the court below which exclude ignorance of the law as a factor are, therefore, overruled.

[50] The decision in Teller does not propound a test or establish criteria which must be met before the court may find a reasonable excuse for the failure to give notice; instead, the decision invites a determination informed by the purpose or intent of the notice provision, taking into account all matters put forward as constituting either singly or together a reasonable excuse.  The determination of whether there is reasonable excuse is contextual.  The question is whether it is reasonable that the plaintiff be excused, having regard to all the circumstances.

Ultimately the Court held that ignorance of the law can be a reasonable excuse in certain circumstances under the Local Government Act.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The second case released today dealt with Pain and Suffering Awards for Soft Tissue Injuries.  In this case (Robinson v. Anderson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 rear end car crash in Tsawwassen, BC.  Liability was admitted leaving the court to deal with the value of the injuries.

Mr. Justice Bernard awarded the Plaintiff $25,000 for her non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life).  In so doing he summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries and their effect on her life as follows:

[18] It is not disputed that the plaintiff sustained soft-tissue injuries to her neck, back, left shoulder and right knee in the collision. Similarly, there is no suggestion that the plaintiff is a dishonest witness who is prevaricating or exaggerating in relation to her pain and the various consequences it has wrought upon her life….

[22] Causation is established where the plaintiff proves that the defendant caused or contributed to the injury: see Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, 140 D.L.R. (4th) 235. In regard to the instant case, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant caused or contributed to the injury which has manifested itself in ongoing symptoms of pain. The evidence establishes consistency and continuity in the plaintiff’s symptoms (albeit with some amelioration) and an absence of any intervening cause which might otherwise account for the plaintiff’s current pain. A dearth of objective medical findings is not determinative; this is particularly so for soft tissue injuries.

[23] Notwithstanding the aforementioned causal link, the evidence strongly supports finding that: (a) the plaintiff’s injuries are not permanent; (b) if the plaintiff takes reasonable steps to improve her fitness level, then significant, if not full, recovery is very likely; and (c) if the plaintiff does take those reasonable steps, then recovery is attainable within a relatively short time frame. In this regard, the medical opinions of both Dr. Hodgson and Dr. Werry (on May 6, 2009 and April 9, 2009 respectively) suggest that the plaintiff’s present symptoms would decrease substantially through a reduction of her “habitus” (body size and shape), increased physical activity, and working through that which is sometimes described as “the pain of reactivation”.

[24] There are similarities between the plaintiff in the instant case and the plaintiff in Nair v. Mani, [1991] B.C.J. No. 2830. Ms Nair was 49 years of age, overweight, and physically unfit at the time she was injured in a motor vehicle collision. She complained of ongoing back, thigh and knee pain. The plaintiff was not a malingerer, but the court found that she could have accelerated her improvement and lessened the impact of her injuries through exercise and weight loss. In relation to the plaintiff’s fitness the court said:

A defendant must take her victim as she finds her, be it with a thin skull or an out of shape musculature. But when it comes to the reasonable efforts expected of a plaintiff to aid her own recovery after the accident, then those reasonable steps include exercise and muscle toning so that an injury may be shaken off more quickly.

[25] The plaintiff’s weight is not relevant to causation; however, it is germane to the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate her losses. It is trite law that a plaintiff has an ongoing duty to mitigate his or her damages. In the case at bar, as in Nair v. Mani, the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate includes taking reasonable steps to reduce her body habitus and increase her fitness level…

[28] Assessment of just and fair compensation for non-pecuniary losses by reference to other cases is a daunting task. Each case is unique in its plaintiff and set of circumstances; nonetheless, I accept that the cases cited by the parties assist in defining reasonable upper and lower limits for a non-pecuniary damages award in the case at bar. The most salient factors of the case at bar are: (a) the absence of proof of a permanent or long-term injury; (b) the existence of some amelioration of symptoms; and (c) the absence of enduring and incessant debilitating pain. In relation to (c), I accept that the plaintiff has suffered from pain since the accident and that it has had an adverse effect upon many aspects of her life; I simply note that the intensity of the pain has not been to the degree suffered by many other plaintiffs.

[29] Having due regard to all the foregoing and the cases cited by counsel, I find that a fair and just award for the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary losses is $25,000.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

In the third case released today the Court was asked to deal with the issue of fault when the occupant of a parked car opens his door and is struck by a cyclist.

In today’s case (Hagreen v. Su) the Defendant was parked and opened his car door.  As he did so the Plaintiff, who was travelling on his bicycle, drove into the open door and was injured.  The Defendant was found 100% at fault for the Plaintiff’s injuries and in so finding Mr. Justice Brooke summarized and applied the law as follows:

] On the day of the accident, Mr. Hagreen was wearing a helmet as well as reflective stripes on his jacket and boots and was proceeding eastward. Cars were parked on his right side in the 2400 block of East Broadway, and as a matter of course, the plaintiff said that while monitoring the vehicle traffic in the two lanes to his left, he also monitored the driver’s side of the parked cars, in order to alert himself to any potential risk. Mr. Hagreen estimated his speed at 25 to 30 km/hr when he said, without any warning, the driver’s door of Mr. Su’s vehicle opened; that he, Mr. Hagreen, yelled, “Whoa,” but immediately hit the door. He described his upper body hitting the door, and he injured his ankle as well when he hit the ground. Emergency services were called, the first responder being a fire truck before the ambulance arrived, and Mr. Hagreen was transported to hospital. He indicated that he believes that he passed out in hospital, but after being seen by a physician, he was told that he could go home. Mr. Hagreen said that when he tried to put his shirt on, he could not lift his left arm above his head, and this resulted in x-rays being taken of his left arm region. Mr. Hagreen saw his family doctor, Dr. Montgomery, who prescribed Tylenol and Codeine to treat the pain throughout the plaintiff’s upper body, principally in the area of the right collar bone. As a result of continuing complaints of pain in the left collar bone, the plaintiff was referred for physiotherapy which provided some relief for what he was told were soft tissue injuries. Mr Hagreen was off work for seven days, and on his return, he avoided heavy lifting and stretching which resulted in other employees having to do that work.

[4] The defendant, Mr. Su, said that on the day of the accident, it was raining and his child was ill, so he had moved the car to the front of the house to take the child to the doctor. He said that he checked what was behind him, and he saw a cyclist about six or seven houses back, and he felt that he had enough time to get out. He said that he put one leg out and turned his body when the bicycle crashed into the door. In cross-examination, Mr. Su acknowledged giving a statement shortly after the accident, and in that statement, he said that he opened the car door slightly and made shoulder check, then he opened the door further and moved both of his legs out, when he saw the bike approaching “really fast” and the resulting collision occurred. Mr. Su had earlier indicated that he had passed the test in English for a second language, although most of his customers speak Chinese rather than English. Mr. Su was asked in cross-examination whether it was true that he did not see the bicycle until the door was opened and that it was then too late, and he acknowledged that that was true but indicated that it was some few years past. It was put to Mr. Su that he did not see the bicycle until it was too late, to which he said yes, and it was put to him that that was the truth, to which he also said yes.

[5] I am satisfied that the defendant is solely responsible for the collision, having opened his door when it was unsafe to do so. Section 203(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, says:

(1) A person must not open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so.

[6] I find that the defendant, Mr. Su, is wholly responsible for the collision and that the plaintiff took all reasonable steps available to him to avoid the collision, but that the door was not opened by Mr. Su until the plaintiff was so close that he had no opportunity to brake or to take evasive action. I now turn to the question of damages.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The last ICBC related case released today dealt with the issue of costs.  In this case (Mariano v. Campbell) the Plaintiff sued for injuries as a result of a car crash.  The claim was prosecuted under Rule 66 and the trial took 4 days (which exceeds the 2 days allowed under Rule 66).

When a Plaintiff sues and succeeds in a Rule 66 lawsuit their ‘costs’ are capped at $6,600 “unless the court orders otherwise” as set out in Rule 66(29).

In today’s case the Plaintiff was awarded a total of just over $115,000 after trial.  She brought an application to be permitted an additional $3,200 in costs.  Madam Justice Loo allowed this application.  This case is worth reviewing in full to see some of the factors courts consider when addressing additional costs to the successful party in a Rule 66 Lawsuit.