Court Sides with Mussio Goodman for Injury Analysis

Sometimes moderate or severe injuries can result from a relatively minor collision. In these cases, ICBC typically takes a hard line approach, arguing “common sense” dictates that a minor collision cannot result in anything but a minor injury. Unfortunately for ICBC, the laws of British Columbia and the laws of physics state otherwise.

Vehicle manufacturers design modern cars to crumple on impact. They do this in order to absorb the force that is being transferred from one body to another. Therefore, if there is more damage on impact, less force is being transferred to an occupant and more to the vehicle. However, if there is little damage to a vehicle, it does not necessarily mean that the impact was insignificant. A possible explanation is that the force from the impact was transferred elsewhere (i.e. to the occupants of a vehicle).

In Dunne v. Sharma, our court recently confirmed that there is no presumption in law that low velocity impact collisions cannot cause significant injury to a claimant. In Dunne, ICBC tried to use the “common sense” approach that a minor accident cannot cause a moderate to severe injury. The Court rejected ICBC’s argument as follows:

[90]         Dealing first with the low velocity and minimal material damage aspect, I note that the defendants have tendered a report prepared by an engineer with expertise in the field of accident reconstruction. The essence of his opinion is that in each of the subject collisions, the velocity change experience by the plaintiff’s vehicle was probably less than about 12 km. per hour. The photographs contained in his report also demonstrate that the damage done to the cars by the collision was quite modest.

[91]         I appreciate that to have to been the case and I accept that common sense might generally dictate that a minor collision would not be expected to result in significant injuries. However, there is simply no basis upon which I am able to extrapolate the information concerning the velocity of the collision to a conclusion that the plaintiff’s injuries must therefore necessarily be of a certain type and degree. As has been judicially observed in a multitude of cases, the court cannot conclude that because the impact of the collision was relatively minor, then any resulting injuries must necessarily be minor as well. Justice Thackeray noted in Gordon v. Palmer (1993), 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 236, 38 A.C.W.S. (3d) 924 (S.C.):

Significant injuries can be caused by the most casual of slips and falls. Conversely, accidents causing extensive property damage may leave those involved unscathed. The presence and extent of injuries are to be determined on the basis of evidence given in court. Objectivity is thus preserved and the public does not have to concern itself with extraneous philosophies that some would impose on the judicial process.

Court Confirm That Bikes Can Be At Fault For Accidents, Like Cars

Looking around the city during our recent spate of sunny weather, it is nice to see the numerous bike lanes in Vancouver being put to some use. The City of Vancouver installed these bike lanes to protect cyclists against accidents, so they should take advantage of them and ride in the designated areas whenever possible.

Of course, there are times when a cyclist must share the road with motor vehicles as well. In these cases, many believe that cyclists should not be held to the same standard of care as motor vehicle drivers, because it is the latter group who are more vulnerable.

However, the law holds a different view.

The case of Miles v Kumar 2013 BCSC 1688 provides a good example of how cyclists are held to the same standard of care on the road. The Plaintiff was cycling on Grandview Highway when he made a lane change in front of a vehicle driven by the Defendant. The lane change was careless, despite the fact that the Plaintiff was on a bicycle and the Defendant was in a car. Mr. Justice Bernard made the following conclusions:

[62] In summary, with due regard for all the foregoing, I make the following determinations: (a) that as Ms Kumar travelled in the left lane to the point of the collision, she enjoyed the right of way; (b) that the evidence does not reasonably support a finding that Ms Kumar was, at the time, driving without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or at a speed that was excessive to the conditions; (c) that when Mr. Miles entered the left lane in front of Ms Kumar his bicycle was servient to Ms Kumar’s car; and, (d) that when Mr. Miles entered the left lane he did so in breach of his statutory duties pursuant to ss. 151(a) and 151(c) of the MV Act.

[63] In addition to the foregoing, I am also satisfied that there is no evidence upon which I could reasonably conclude: (a) that Ms Kumar ought to have known that Mr. Miles would disregard her right of way; or, (b) that there was sufficient opportunity for a reasonably careful and skilled driver in the position of Ms Kumar to avoid colliding with Mr. Miles (see Walker v. Brownlee, supra).

The bottom line is that a careless lane change is a careless lane change, whether you are operating a bicycle or a motor vehicle. This is true for any other rule of the road. Needless to say, the cyclist will suffer the brunt of any collision with a car, regardless of fault. However, the law does not discriminate; even if a bicyclist is seriously injured in an accident that was their fault, they will have no legal recourse.

For this reason, cyclists need to be remain particularly vigilant of their surroundings on public roads.

Specific safety tips and regulations for cyclists can be found here.

What You Need to Know About Interest on Disbursement on ICBC Claim Cases

In order to fight for your right to compensation with ICBC, lawyers must spend money on a variety of necessary services such as investigation, doctor’s reports, photocopies and court fees. These expenses are known as disbursements.

When you hire a lawyer for your ICBC car accident, you are typically charged an interest rate on these disbursements. This is to facilitate financing your case, as most law firms require a loan or a line of credit from a lending institution to operate their business.

Normally, ICBC will be forced to pay the interest charge because it is associated with the the advancement of a claimant’s case. However, many lawyers charge very high interest rates (ie. over 10-15% per year. As a result, ICBC will resist paying those charges when the case is concluded).

In the recent case of Phippen v. Hampton, the claimant was injured in a car accident and retained a law firm. Upon signing the fee agreement, she agreed to pay 15% on disbursements since the lawyer was using a financial lender to finance the personal injury claim. When the lawyer tried to get ICBC to pay for the interest charges, ICBC refused. The Supreme Court of British Columbia determined that 15% was unreasonable in the circumstances and substituted a lower rate.

In essence, the court confirmed that ICBC is not forced to pay interest that is too high, but only reasonable interest on disbursements. In practice, a reasonable rate is usually between 6-8%.

The decision is good news for all claimants. It confirms that the interest on disbursements must be paid for by ICBC, and sets a key precedent as to what is a reasonable rate. Lawyers that attempt to charge over 8% will likely be confronted with ICBC’s refusal to pay those charges when the claim is finished.

The end result is that the claimant may be stuck with paying the remainder of any interest that Court has deemed unreasonable. This seemingly small amount can add up, especially for cases of a lengthy duration.

A few percentage points of interest on disbursements can mean a client is left with a lower settlement at the end of the claim. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to interest charges on disbursements when you are thinking of hiring a lawyer.