Tag: Mr. Justice Brooke

More on the Steep Consequences of Part 7 Benefits Deductions in Tort Trials

As previously discussed, if you are insured with ICBC and fail to pursue your own Part 7 benefits a Defendant can reduce their liability by the amount of the benefits you should have pursued.  This can result in a very harsh damages deduction.  This was again illustrated in reasons for judgement released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry.
In last week’s case (Thomas v. Thompson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 collision.  The case went to trial in 2010 and the Plaintiff was awarded damages for various losses including the cost of future medical care.  One of the future care items was the cost of Lyrica.   The parties were invited to make further submissions regarding the future costs of this medication.
The Court accepted that the present day value of the Plaintiff’s future need for Lyrica totalled $147,939.   This entire award was then deducted because the Plaintiff could have pursued payment for this directly under his no-fault benefits.  In allowing this six figure damage reduction Mr. Justice Brooke provided the following reasons:







[4] The defendants say that rather than ordering the payment to the plaintiff of the present value of Lyrica as a cost of future care, the court must apply the provisions of s. 83(5) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act. This section in its entirety says this:

83

(a) within the definition of section 1.1, or

(b) that are similar to those within the definition of section 1.1, provided under vehicle insurance wherever issued and in effect,

but does not include a payment made pursuant to third party liability insurance coverage.

(2) A person who has a claim for damages and who receives or is entitled to receive benefits respecting the loss on which the claim is based, is deemed to have released the claim to the extent of the benefits.

(3) Nothing in this section precludes the insurer from demanding from the person referred to in subsection (2), as a condition precedent to payment, a release to the extent of the payment.

(4) In an action in respect of bodily injury or death caused by a vehicle or the use or operation of a vehicle, the amount of benefits paid, or to which the person referred to in subsection (2) is or would have been entitled, must not be referred to or disclosed to the court or jury until the court has assessed the award of damages.

(5) After assessing the award of damages under subsection (4), the amount of benefits referred to in that subsection must be disclosed to the court, and taken into account, or, if the amount of benefits has not been ascertained, the court must estimate it and take the estimate into account, and the person referred to in subsection (2) is entitled to enter judgment for the balance only.

[5] I am satisfied that the Part 7 benefits available to the plaintiff exceeded the present value of those benefits and judgment may not be entered for them.









For more information on the complexities of part 7 benefits and tort damage assessments you can click here to read my article “the two hats of ICBC“.

The Other Side of Bradley: Indivisible Injuries and Damage Deductions


In 2010 the BC Court of Appeal released welcome reasons for judgement (Bradley v. Groves) which made it easier for individuals to recover damages for “indivisible” injuries.  In short the Court confirmed that if two or more incidents caused an indivisible injury you could sue any of the party’s responsible for causing the harm and recover the whole of the loss.
There is, however, a downside to the benefits of Bradley v. Groves.  If you sustain an indivisible injury and receive compensation for it from one tortfeasor a subsequent tort feasor may be able to reduce their liability by the amount of the previous settlement or judgement.  This argument was considered in reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Supreme Court.
In this week’s case (Thomas v. Thompson) the Plaintiff sued for damages from a 2005 motor vehicle collision.  The trial judge found that some of the Plaintiff’s injuries were indivisible from those sustained in a 2002 collision.   The Plaintiff settled his claim for damages from the 2002 collision for $10,000.  Following trial the Defendant argued that the damage assessment for the 2005 collision should be reduced by $10,000 to take into account the previous settlement.
The Court noted that damages were assessed taking the Plaintiff’s pre-existing issues into account and that it would not be just to re-open the trial to allow for such a result.  Implicit in the Court’s judgement is that if the right evidence is tendered at trial such a deduction could be allowed.  Mr. Justice Brooke provided the following illustrative reasons:






[7] I did not accept the evidence of the plaintiff that he had made a full recovery from the 2002 accident. In assessing non-pecuniary damages for the effects of the accident of June 27, 2005, I took the plaintiff in the position he then occupied; that is, as continuing to make recovery from the earlier injuries. I did not treat him as if he were whole at the time of the second accident. Thus, I reject the submission that the settlement funds paid to the plaintiff following the first accident be deducted from the award for the damages sustained in the second accident. There is no double recovery.

[8] I refer to the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361 where the plaintiff had been injured in a second accident which aggravated injuries sustained in the first accident. At paragraph 38 the Court said this:

Without a finding of divisibility, the appellant’s arguments cannot succeed. The trial judge found as a fact that the plaintiff’s injuries from the first accident and the second accident were indivisible. The defendant and the other motorist both caused and contributed to the plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries. He also found those injuries were not separable. There is no basis on which to interfere with these findings of fact. Flowing from them is the conclusion of joint and several liability.

[9] On all of the evidence before me, I found that the plaintiff’s injuries in the first and second accident were indivisible.

[10] While I accept that I have discretion to reopen the trial, I am not satisfied that it is right and just to do so.







For an example of this deduction argument succeeding see the 2008 BC Court of Appeal decision of Ashcroft v. Dhaliwal.

New Rules of Court Update – The Transition Rule

Reasons for judgement were released today interpreting and applying Rule 24 (the transition rule).
In today’s case (Willard v. Mitchell) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  The Defendant brought a motion to compel the Plaintiff to produce various medical and business records.  The lawsuit was commenced under the former rules of court.  The motion for production was also filed under the former rules but judgement was not delivered until October, 2010.
Mr. Justice Brooke ordered production of the documents the Defendant requested.  Prior to doing so the Court stated that the former Rules of Court applied to applications filed prior to July 1, 2010.  Specifically Mr. Justice Brooke held as follows:

[24]         Both the present action and application were filed before July 1, 2010, when the new Supreme Court Rules came into effect. Rule 24?1 of the new civil rules provides that a proceeding started before that date will proceed under the new rules, with this exception:

Step in ongoing proceeding

(14)  If a step in a proceeding is taken before July 1, 2010, the former Supreme Court Rules apply to any right or obligation arising out of or relating to that step if and to the extent that that right or obligation is to have effect before September 1, 2010.

[25]         In my view, the defendant’s application for discovery of documents constitutes a step in a proceeding that was taken before July 1, 2010, and the right or obligation will have effect before September 1, 2010. Accordingly, the former Supreme Court Rules, and specifically Rule 26 governing the discovery and inspection of documents, continue to apply to this application.

Unintended Consequences: ICBC Wage Loss Claims and Undeclared Income


As I’ve previously written, if a person does not declare their earnings when paying their taxes they can still advance a wage loss claim in a personal injury lawsuit, however, doing so not only makes the claim more difficult to prove but also could expose the Plaintiff to repercussions from Revenue Canada.  Reasons for judgement were released last week demonstrating why this is so.
In last week’s case (Thomas v. Thompson) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 motor vehicle collision in Kelowna, BC.  He went to trial without a lawyer and advanced a claim for damages for over $1.3 million.   Fault for the crash was admitted by the Defendant.  At trial many of the Plaintiff’s claims were rejected by the trial judge however the Court did accept that the Plaintiff suffered from “continuing pain” as a result of the collision and this would need to be treated on an ongoing basis with medication.  As a result the Plaintiff was awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss and cost of future care.
The Plaintiff gave evidence that he earned an average income of more than $60,000 per year in the period shortly prior to the crash.  However, his tax returns did not reflect this.  Despite the unreported nature of the pre-injury income Mr. Justice Brooke accepted that the Plaintiff did earn a “substantial income” in the years prior to the crash.  The Court rejected the claim for loss of past and future income, however, finding that the Plaintiff’s injuries, while on-going, did not impair his earning capacity.
The end result is that, in advancing an unsuccessful claim for past loss of income, the Plaintiff testified in open court as to the amount of income he earned that he failed to report to Revenue Canada.   As reasons for judgement are publicly available there is nothing stopping government agencies such as Revenue Canada from pursuing Plaintiffs who give such evidence for payment of back taxes and penalties.  These can, of course, be substantial.  The difficulties with advancing wage loss claims when the history of earnings is unreported is demonstrated by the following passage from the trial judge:

[24]         I now turn to the damages claimed by the plaintiff, and the question of credibility.

[25]         First of all, the plaintiff said under oath that he earned an income in 2004 of $63,886 and in 2005 from January 3 to June 28 an income of $31,444 (or more than $60,000 on average a year), in home renovation work. Mr. Dave Novak gave evidence for the plaintiff that he hired him on a regular basis to do home improvements and renovations, based on an estimate in advance, for which he sometimes paid in cash and sometimes by cheque. He did not disagree with the amounts shown by Mr. Thomas on forms of sales orders, but acknowledged that he had no firm recollection. In his 2003 tax return summary, Mr. Thomas reported an income of $21,815 employment insurance benefits. No reference is made to income from employment. In 2004 Mr. Thomas reported an income of $6,840 from employment insurance, and other income of $500 for a total of $7,340. In 2005 Mr. Thomas reported no income, and in 2006 and following Mr. Thomas reported an income of Social Assistance payments varying from a little more than $2,000 a year to almost $11,000 a year. There is no reference to any employment income in any tax return placed in evidence. Mr. Thomas explains this by saying that he did not understand that tax was payable on earned income where the tax payer did not charge GST or PST. I find this to be preposterous. What Mr. Thomas is saying is that he is well informed enough to claim employment insurance benefits, but not well informed enough to report actual income. It is noted that in each year his tax return was prepared by H&R Block, a commercial tax preparer. I also note that Mr. Thomas made an assignment in bankruptcy on August 24, 2007 in which he disclosed liabilities of in excess of $41,000 made up of student loans and credit card debts. While I accept that Mr. Thomas has been challenged in his language skills in the past, and I must consider what role if any this might have played, I find his understanding and usage was fluent and effective and I can only conclude either that he knowingly failed to disclose his true income in his tax returns, or that he did not earn the kind of income that he claims to have made in the home renovation business.

[26]         I find that Mr. Thomas was working in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and earning a substantial income. But, not only was he failing to report that income but he seemingly was drawing employment insurance which is, of course, payable upon being fit but unable to find work.

ICBC Claims and Pain Triggered in Pre-Existing Asymptomatic Conditions


As I’ve previously written, a common occurrence after a car crash is the onset of pain in a pre-existing but asymptomatic condition.  When this occurs it is no defence for the at-fault party to argue that the pre-existing condition is more responsible for the symptoms than the crash.  This principle was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In today’s case (Neumann v. Eskoy) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision in 2006.  The Defendant admitted fault.   The trial focused on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.
Prior to the crash the Plaintiff has osteoarthritis in his hip and asymptomatic degenerative changes in his spine.  After the crash these conditions became painful and the Plaintiff went on to develop a chronic-pain syndrome.  The Defendant hired a doctor who gave evidence that the car crash was not the main cause of the Plaintiff’s chronic pain, rather it was mostly the fault of the pre-existing degenerative changes.
The Defence lawyer then argued that the Plaintiff’s compensation should be relatively modest to account for this pre-existing condition.  Mr. Justice Brooke disagreed and went on to award the Plaintiff $90,000 in non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) for his chronic pain syndrome.  In doing so the Court provided the following useful comments:

[13]         I also refer to the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in B.P.B. v. M.M.B., 2009 BCCA 365 where Mr. Justice Chaisson, at paragraphs 42 and 43, says this:

[42]      In my view, the trial judge in this case failed to determine whether the plaintiff’s injury was divisible or indivisible. She appears not to have distinguished “between causation as the source of the loss and the rules for the assessment of damages in tort” as mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in para. 78 of Blackwater. The liability question is whether the conduct of the defendant caused injury. The assessment of damages requires a determination whether the injury derived from multiple sources and whether it is divisible. If it is, responsibility is allocated to the individual sources of the injury.

[43]      It the injury is indivisible, the court must consider the possible application of the thin skull or crumbling skull rules in the context of the victim’s original condition. If the crumbling skull rule applies, it forms part of returning the victim to his or her original condition and the tortfeasor is not responsible for events that caused the crumbled skull. Absent the application of the crumbling skull rule, where the injury is indivisible, all torfeasors who caused or contributed to the injury are 100% liable for the damages sustained by the victim.

See also the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361, which was decided after the trial of this action.

[14]         I am satisfied that before the accident and despite the asymptomatic degenerative conditions, the plaintiff was not only functioning adequately, but also at a very high physical level. But for the accident and the injury sustained to his neck, the plaintiff would not have sustained the chronic pain syndrome from which he now suffers. I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s long and commendable work history was interrupted by the injury sustained by him in the accident, and that despite the plaintiff’s best efforts he continues to suffer from chronic pain which is moderated somewhat by medication. I am also satisfied that the medication itself has an adverse aspect in addition to its therapeutic effect in that the plaintiff now suffers from sleep apnea and fatigue. Pain and fatigue on a continuing or chronic basis can and do dramatically impair the quality of life and the enjoyment of life. The work that Mr. Newmann now does is well paying and secure, but Mr. Newmann worries that he may not be able to continue indefinitely. Worry is burdensome and can also impair the enjoyment of life. I find that an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $90,000.

ICBC Injury Claims and Effective Cross Examination

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

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.

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