Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, finding a police officer fully at fault for an intersection collision with another motorist.
In today’s case (Burroughs v. Chiasson) the Plaintiff was an RCMP officer involved in a crash in 2013. At the time, while driving a fully marked RCMP vehicle, she “pursued a truck with an uninsured trailer by attempting to turn left, on a red light, onto Young Road from the westbound curb lane on First Avenue. While making this turn, she collided with a minivan driven by the defendant, Jennifer Chiasson. Ms. Chiasson was driving eastbound on First Avenue.”.
The RCMP officer sued the other motorist claiming damages from the collision. The claim was dismissed with the Court finding that the Plaintiff entered the intersection when it was dangerous to do so in circumstances with no particular urgency. In dismissing the claim and finding the officer fully at fault for the crash Mr. Justice Basran provided the following reasons:
Adding to this site’s archived posts of judicial criticism of expert witness advocacy, reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, rejecting a defence expert for shortcomings in their opinion evidence.
In today’s case (Soltan v. Glasgow) the Plaintiff was injured in two collisions that the Defendants accepted fault for. In the course of litigation the Defendants retained an orthopaedic surgeon who provided opinion evidence minimizing the impact of the Plaintiff’s injuries and prognosis. In finding it “difficult to ascribe any weight” to these opinions Mr. Justice Saunders provided the following critical comments:
Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for injuries sustained in a vehicle collision.
In the recent case (Williams v. Sekhon) the Plaintiff sustained serious and disabling injuries in a 2013 collision that the Defendant accepted fault for. In the defence of the claim the Defendants insurer, ICBC, conducted a ‘troublesome‘ amount of surveillance into the Plaintiff’s life. The Plaintiff requested that special costs be awarded for this. While the court did not go so far as to award special costs Mr. Justice Voith provided the following lengthy comments setting parameters into what is and is not reasonable surveillance:
Reasons for judgment were published last week with an extensive discussion of the principles of registered owner vicarious liability for BC collisions.
In the recent case (Bowe v. Bowe) the Plaintiff was injured as a passenger involved in a collision. At the time of the crash the Plaintiff took his stepfathers car keys without permission. They lived in the same household. The Plaintiff contacted his cousin, who lived in a separate household, and collectively they took the vehicle. In the course of the evening the two boys drove around for several hours before the Accident. Both took turns driving but at the time of the crash the cousin was behind the wheel.
The Plaintiff suffered serious injuries including a moderate brain injury. A jury found the driver negligent and the plaintiff contributorily negligent. A question arose as to whether the registered owner bears any liability in these circumstances.
Section 86 of BC’s Motor Vehicle Act establishes vicarious liability for vehicle owners when their vehicle is being driven by a household member or by anyone who acquired the vehicle with the owners consent. The latter test was not applicable on these facts. The court was asked whether the household member rule was triggered in these circumstances. The applicable provision of the MVA reads as follows:
Reasons for judgement were published today ordering double costs to a plaintiff who was awarded damages substantially above his settlement request following a vehicle injury.
In today’s case (Godbout v. Notter) the Plaintiff was injured in a a vehicle collision that the Defendant was at fault for. Following an unsuccessful mediation the Plaintiff provided a formal offer to settle his claim for $300,000. ICBC refused and offered 1/3 of this. At trial the Plaintiff was awarded damages totalling $583,199.36 for non-pecuniary loss, past wage loss, future lost earnings, future care costs, loss of housekeeping capacity and special damages.
The Plaintiff was then awarded double costs for ICBC’s unreasonable refusal to accept the Plaintiff’s settlement offer. In finding double costs were warranted Mr. Justice Jenkins provided the following reasons:
Adding to this site’s archived posts of judicial criticism of expert witness advocacy, reasons for judgment were published today finding a defence doctor’s opinion to be “of little value” in an injury claim.
In today’s case (Lambert v. Tiwana) the plaintiff was involved in two collisions and claimed damages. The Defendants admitted fault in both claims. The Plaintiff suffered a myofascial shoulder injury with persistent symptoms. In the course of the lawsuit the Defendants had the Plaintiff examined by an orthopaedic surgeon who provided an opinion minimizing the plaintiff’s injuries. In finding the ‘close-minded‘ and ‘inappropriately dismissive‘ opinion of little value Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:
Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dismissing a negligence lawsuit against a bus driver who collided with a moose.
In today’s case (Tran v. Anderson) the Defendant was operating a Greyhound bus on June 22, 2011. He was travelling above the posted speed limit. A moose appeared “suddenly out of the foliage to the right of the highway, about 20 feet in front of the bus“. The Court found that the Defendant had no time to react in these circumstances and even if was travelling at the posted speed limit the result would have been the same.
In dismissing the negligence claim Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:
Reasons for judgment were published today assessing damages for a collision resulting in various soft tissue injuries coupled with the onset of symptoms in a pre-existing degenerative spine.
In today’s case (Ryan v. Lawson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2014 collision. The Defendant accepted fault. The crash resulted in a variety of soft tissue injuries many of which recovered. THe crash also resulted in the onset of symptoms in a pre-existing albeit asymptomatic degenerative condition in the Plaintiff’s spine. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $86,000 Madam Justice Jackson made the following findings:
Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries with a poor prognosis for recovery.
In today’s case (Sen-Laurenz v. Napoli) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2014 collision which the Defendant accepted fault for. The Plaintiff was described as a “highly motivated and at that time physically fit 20-year-old plaintiff was attending Capilano University in North Vancouver and was in the early stages of pursuing her career goal to become a medical doctor. “. The crash resulted in chronic soft tissue injuries which did not fully recover. The residual symptoms were expected to be present indefinitely. The injuries impeded her education and delayed her entry into medical school. In assessing non pecuniary damages at $90,000 Mr. Justice Walker provided the following reasons:
Reasons for judgement were published last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating the discretionary nature of double costs awards following the dismissal of a personal injury claim.
In last week’s case (Findlay v. George) the Plaintiff was involved in a significant 2013 collison. The crash left the defendant motorist dead at the scene. The Plaintiff “attempted to assist with the rescue and resuscitation of the defendant at the scene and, in the result, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder “.
The Plaintiff’s damages were potentially significant with the Court noting “given the commonality of the medical evidence, damages could have reached seven figures.”.
Prior to trial ICBC provided a formal settlement offer of $80,000. The Plaintiff declined and proceeded to trial where the claim was dismissed based on liability. ICBC sought double costs. Mr. Justice Harvey refused to grant these noting costs awards are discretionary and given the potential damages at play and further some evidence where contributory negligence could have been established it was reasonable for the Plaintiff to proceed to trial in the face of this offer. In declining to award double costs the Court provided the following reasons: