Tag: bc injury law

$86,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Triggering of Symptoms in Pre Existing Degenerative Spine

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:

Continue reading

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

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:

Continue reading

Court Declines to Order Double Costs After Jury Dismisses Injury Claim Based on Liability

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:

Continue reading

$120,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for TMJ and Trigeminal Neuralgia

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic jaw injury suffered in a vehicle collision.

In the recent case (Tomas v. Sticha) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision that the Defendant accepted fault for.  The crash led a variety of soft tissue injuries along with TMJ syndrome and trigeminal neuralgia.  The symptoms persisted to the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $120,000 Mr. Justice Tammen provided the following reasons:

Continue reading

$65,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Intermittent Soft Tissue Injuries

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

In today’s case (Juelfs v. McCue) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2014 collision that the Defendants accepted fault for.   The crash resulted in a variety of injuries some of which continued to linger to the time of trial and had a poor prognosis for full recovery.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Mr. Justice Riley made the below findings and provided the following reasons:

Continue reading

When a Two Year Limitation Period is Actually Three

In British Columbia many legal claims are subject to a two year limitation period.  Once a lawsuit is started in the BC Supreme Court a Plaintiff has a year to serve the claim on the Defendants being sued.   This period, totalling potentially three years, is considered when adding new parties to an existing lawsuit as demonstrated in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.

In today’s case (Jamal v. Young) the Plaintiff was involved in a series of collisions and sued for damages.  The Plaintiff sought to add more parties to one of the claims beyond the expiration of the two year limitation period.  The application was opposed with the Defendants arguing the passage of time and limitation period was prejudicial.  The Court granted the application noting the relevant period to consider prejudice in these circumstances is three years.  Master Elwood provided the following useful summary of the law:

Continue reading

Diminished Housekeeping Capacity Claim Assessed for “Fastidious Housekeeper”

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for diminished housekeeping capacity for a plaintiff with ‘fastidious’ housekeeping standards.

In today’s case (Broomfield v. Lof) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2014 rear end collision. Liability was admitted.   The crash resulted in a variety of injuries the most serious of which were chronic depression and somatic symptom disorder.  These resulted in a period of total disability followed by the Plaintiff being able to return to work but on a reduced basis.

The Plaintiff had restrictions in her housekeeping abilities and these were medically supported.  The Defendant opposed damages for diminished housekeeping capacity in part because the plaintiff admitted that “she was able to do what she wanted if she pushed through the pain“.  Despite this admission the court found the evidence justified damages for diminished housekeeping capacity and awarded just over $100,000 for past and future losses.  In reaching this assessment Madam Justice Young provided the following reasons:

Continue reading

$130,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Depression and Somatic Symptom Disorder

Adding to this site’s archives of psychiatric injury assessments, reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic depression and somatic symptom disorder.

In today’s case (Broomfield v. Lof) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2014 rear end collision.  The impact was “significant” and the Defendant admitted fault.

Continue reading

$150,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Permanent Partly Disabling Neck and Shoulder Injuries

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for permanent partly disabling injuries sustained in a vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Mattson v. Spady) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2014 rear end collision.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff sustained a variety of injuries including chronic headaches, neck and shoulder injuries.  These had a poor prognosis and were expected to be permanently partly disabling in her occupation as a kinesiologist.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $150,000 Madam Justice Winteringham provided the following reasons:

Continue reading

No Mistrial For “Inapropriate” Comments to Jury Where Corrective Instruction Will Do

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Penticton Registry, denying a mistrial request based on inappropriate closing submissions to a jury.

In today’s case (Johal v. Johal) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.  The court noted that throughout his closing submissions, plaintiff’s counsel made several references to the fact the defendants did not call a case. These included:

Continue reading

Contact

If you would like further information or require assistance, please get in touch.

ERIK
MAGRAKEN

Personal Injury Lawyer

When not writing the BC Injury Law Blog, Erik is the managing partner at MacIsaac & Company, based in Victoria, B.C. He is also involved with combative sports regulatory issues and authors the Combat Sports Law Blog.

“Work hard, be kind and enjoy the ride!”
Erik’s Philosophy

Disclaimer