Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court awarding a Plaintiff compensation as a result of a 2002 motor vehicle collision.
The collision happened in Victoria. It was a rear end crash and the Defendant admitted fault. This appears to be a crash that fit into ICBC’s Low Velocity Impact (LVI) criteria as the vehicles suffered minimal damage.
The Plaintiff claimed significant injury which was on-going more than 5 years post collision which would impact her future earning capacity. The defence position was that that crash caused a mild soft tissue injury which resolved by October 2003.
The court found that the crashed caused a 2 year soft tissue injury and made the following findings:
 I have some difficult in assessing (the Plaintiff’s) evidence. She describes the resulting dent in her car as huge, yet it does not look like that in the pictures and the cost to repair was estimated at only $53. She said she was in incredible pain immediately after the accident, yet Ms. Lobb spoke to her and was under the impression everyone was fine. No ambulance was called, nor did she seek immediate medical attention which I would expect would happen if the pain was immediately “incredible” and “excruciating”. On the other hand, I have no doubt that (the Plaintiff) suffered pain caused by the accident which, as documented by the medical reports, gradually got worse over the ensuing weeks. I also have no doubt that (the Plaintiff) continues to have pain to this day – it seems to me on looking at her that it is written in her face. As Dr. Vincent testified, people do not go for injection therapy unless they have pain. Furthermore, there is evidence from her mother, her friend and her employers that she is not the high energy person she once was. The difficulty is to assess the degree to which the collision is the cause of her pain and the true effect of that upon her life. There is a tendency to attribute a multitude of difficulties following a car accident to that one cause when often there are many…….
 (the Plaintiff) bears the onus of proving that the condition for which she seeks compensation was on the balance of probabilities caused by the December 30th, 2002 collision. I find on the evidence that she did suffer a mild to moderate soft tissue injury to her neck and back as initially diagnosed in her early months of treatment by Dr. Down which was caused by the collision. I am not persuaded, however, on the balance of probabilities, that her condition caused by the accident injuries extended beyond the two year period initially foreseen by Dr. Down. She was clearly on a course of recovery in that two year period. What happened thereafter has not been proven to have been caused by the December 30th, 2002 collision.
 I assess (the Plaintiff’s) general damages for a mild to moderate soft tissue injury to her neck and back extending over a period of two years at $30,000.