Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/category/icbc-ankle-injury-cases-british-columbia-personal-injury-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:50:18+00:00

Document:
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a serious ankle injury leading to permanent partial disability.
In this week’s case (Hubbs v. Escueta) the Plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle accident when he was struck by the Defendant. Although liability was contested the Court found the Defendant’s evidence was “not credible” and he was found fully at fault for the collision.
The Plaintiff suffered a complex bimalleolar ankle fracture which was treated surgically.
 This case highlights the importance of the individual circumstances. The injury suffered by Mr. Hubbs is serious. While the consequences for someone of more sedentary occupation and lifestyle might not have been so significant, for Mr. Hubbs the injury has proven to be life changing. He is a relatively young man who now faces a lifetime of limitation and disability. Mr. Hubbs’ livelihood requires strength, agility and balance, all of which have been impaired by the injury. The injury has impaired his ability to earn his living. He has worked through the pain, but at a terrible cost to his family life. He is no longer able to enjoy the active lifestyle he loved. His mood is depressed and he has little energy for anything except the struggle to put in a day at work. His relations with his wife and children have been damaged. It appears that he has reached a plateau in his recovery and faces a future of increased deterioration and vulnerability to injury.
 In my view, the cases cited by plaintiff’s counsel are more representative of the circumstances in the present case. I award $130,000 for non-pecuniary loss.
Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, assessing damages for physical and psychological injuries resulting from a motor vehicle collision.
Ms. Verge suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and back, a fractured right talus, bruising to and pain in her chest, and pain in her left shoulder, both knees, and hip.
78] After considering the evidence, the factors enumerated by the Court of Appeal in Stapley, and the authorities cited by counsel, I award non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $125,000.
Reasons for judgement were released last month by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, addressing damages from a 2006 motor vehicle collision.
In last month’s case (Felix v. Hearne) the Plaintiff was driving her vehicle when her boyfriend, who was riding as a passenger, “grabbed the steering wheel causing the vehicle to leave the highway and overturn.” He was killed in the collision and the Plaintiff suffered numerous physical injuries.
 In this case, the physical injuries continuing to affect the plaintiff include: the injury to her left shoulder, left wrist and left ankle; as well as persistent pain in her neck and back. The pain in her neck and back limits her ability to sit for any extended period of time and is associated with the onset of headaches.
 Ms. Felix’s life has markedly changed following the collision. She is now reliant on her daughters to assist in keeping her home. She receives psychological therapy, is treated with anti-depressant medication and has been prescribed Ativan and Valium to allow her to sleep. She has not been able to work and has been forced to live off of disability benefits and funds realized by re-mortgaging her home. The evidence from her daughter and her two long-time friends who gave evidence on her behalf was that her level of activity and previously bright outlook on life had markedly changed. Her daughter was concerned that, at times, she seemed suicidal. She said that she noted some improvement after she attended the pain clinic in the spring of 2010 and that she seemed a little happier and better able to manage her pain, but that she had regressed since and lacked focus and initiative. She said she often appeared to be in pain, had become short tempered and withdrew from contact with family and friends.
 Many of the same comments were made by her friends who commented on the difficulty in getting her to attend social functions, her lack of participation and stamina, and her fragile emotional state.
 On balance, I think an appropriate assessment in light of this authority in this case to be $200,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages. The combined effects of residual physical injuries, specifically the neck and back pain and associated headaches, loss of function in her left wrist, and injury to her left shoulder and ankle, along with the pervasive emotional disorder resulting from the effects of her injuries and the trauma of the collision, have been devastating to Ms. Felix’s personal and vocational life. She has lost much of her ability to be self-reliant and to participate in many of the activities that have been the foundation of her social life. The injuries are now assessed as chronic and I think she will continue to struggle with the depression and emotional upset that has marked the six years subsequent to her injuries.
It is worth noting that none of the Plaintiff’s evidence was tested through cross-examination as the Defendant’s estate did not file an appearance and ICBC, for reasons that were not clear in the judgement, “declined to participate” in the defence of the claim. Despite this, the case still has value as a precedent for non-pecuniary damage assessments for chronic pain following a motor vehicle collision.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the issues of fault and value of injuries sustained in a 2005 slip and fall accident in Vancouver, BC.
In today’s case (Druet v. Sandman Hotels, Inns & Suites Ltd.,) the Plaintiff was visiting Vancouver, BC and was staying at a hotel operated by the Defendant company. As she entered the hotel she slipped on the floor and fractured her ankle. The injury requires surgical correction.
The Court found that both parties were equally at fault for the incident. The Defendants were found at fault for having unreasonably slippery tiles in their lobby knowing how often patrons tracked water into the lobby. The Plaintiff was found partly at fault for failing to take reasonable care for her own safety. Paragraphs 14-62 are worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of fault.
 Druet suffered a bimalleolar ankle fracture. She had open reduction surgery. The break was fixed with metal screws. The metal screws were removed by a further operation. She had ongoing complaints of stiffness and lack of range of motion. She had a lack of dorsiflexion and could not invert or evert her right hindfoot very well. In June 2008 she had scar tissue surgically debrided and a gastrocnemius recession was performed.
 By 2009 Druet’s condition was stabilized, but she had stiffness and arthrofibrosis of her right ankle, related to her bimalleolar ankle fracture. She is not considered at high risk for future injuries, provided she stays within reasonable restrictions.
 I have described the injuries above. As a result of those injuries the plaintiff had three surgeries, although two were in succession. She had implantation of a plate, a rod and surgical screws in March 2005 which were removed in September 2005. Her ankle was debrided in June 2008.
 Druet missed a total of three months of work as a licenced practical nurse arising from the injuries and surgeries. She walked with crutches for a short time after the Accident while recuperating. She had limited physiotherapy in 2005 but not since. She wears orthotics.
 Druet has substantially resumed her previous activities, except running. She now walks two miles a day, five days a week. She did substantial walking during a vacation to Europe in 2006 and a holiday in New York in 2008. She can walk five kilometres. She participates in 5K walks and completes them 10 to 15 minutes slower than when she ran. ..
In my opinion non-pecuniary damages fall between the two parties’ positions. I award $55,000 under this head.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, awarding a Plaintiff just over $426,000 in total compensation for injuries and losses as a result of a 2007 motor vehicle collision.
Fault for the collision was hotly contested in today’s case (Hildebrand v. Musseau) . The Defendant was operating a pick-up truck. The Plaintiff was operating a dirt bike. The vehicles approached each other from opposite directions. Both motorists gave evidence that the other was on the wrong side of the road as they approached. Ultimately the Court concluded that the Defendant was in the Plaintiff’s lane of travel as the vehicles approached each other. The Plaintiff took evasive measures but was unsuccessful and was struck by the Defendant’s truck. The Defendant was found 90% at fault for the crash.
 The plaintiff is a young man who suffered three different broken bones in his body. He lost eight and a half months of work convalescing. He had surgery to repair his broken bones and eventually had further surgery in which to remove plates and screws. He was initially confined to a wheelchair, then walked with crutches and eventually a cane. Many of his recreational activities were curtailed, some of which have been curtailed permanently, particularly if they relate to high impact-type activities. He has lost some range of motion in his right ankle which is unlikely to improve. The prognosis for osteoarthritis in the right ankle in the long-term is moderate. His injuries have prevented him in part from pursuing some renovations he wished to do in his home. The plaintiff’s injuries, particularly his right ankle and right knee, affect his ability to carry heavy loads, climb stairs and ladders, squat or kneel for extended periods of time.
 The plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was aged 21 and had recently been certified as a journeyman auto body repair technician, a trade to which he appears to be well-suited.
 He has a permanent disability as it relates to his ankle which prevents him from pursuing activities that he pursued prior to the accident and he may have wished to pursue in the future.
 I assess non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $135,000.00.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, awarding a Plaintiff just over $10,000 for injuries and losses sustained in a cross-walk collision.
In today’s case (Furness v. Guest) the Plaintiff pedestrian was struck by the Defendant’s vehicle as he was trying to cross Nicol Street in Nanaimo, BC. When the Plaintiff stepped off the curb to cross the street the “don’t walk” signal was flashing but he was not aware of this. The Defendant was stopped in a tractor-trailer waiting for a green signal. As the Plaintiff walked in front of the Defendant’s vehicle an advance green arrow illuminated permitting the Defendant to start driving. The Defendant did not see the Plaintiff and struck him with his vehicle.
Both liability (fault) and quantum (value) were at issue in this trial. Mr. Justice Halfyard held that the Defendant driver was careless for failing “to keep a proper lookout” and for failing to see the Plaintiff who was “there to be seen“.
 I find that the plaintiff’s degree of fault for the accident is considerably greater than the degree of fault of Mr. Guest. There is no legal formula for determining how fault for an accident should be divided. Counsel for the plaintiff referred me to a number of authorities in support of his submission that Mr. Guest should bear the far greater fault for the accident. Of course, the evidence and the findings of fact are different in all cases. As a consequence, previously-decided cases are of limited assistance at best. I found the cases of Funk v. Carter 2004 BCSC 866 (Williamson J.) and Morrison v. Pankratz 1991 CarswellBC 1765 (Shaw J.) to be of some assistance, particularly in the discussions of the general principles.
 In my opinion, liability should be apportioned as to 25% against Mr. Guest, and 75% as against Mr. Furness, and I so order.
d) other minor contusions and abrasions.
 The plaintiff complained of ongoing pain in his right ankle, which he attributes to the accident of February 13, 2007. ..
 I find that, by the time of trial, the plaintiff had substantially recovered from the injuries he sustained in the accident of February 13, 2007. There is no medical opinion evidence which causally connects the plaintiff’s present complaints to his injuries of February 13, 2007. Nor is there any evidence of objective medical findings that confirm the plaintiff’s ongoing complaints of pain in his knee. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the necessary causal connection between the accident and the plaintiff’s present complaints of physical pain has been proved. However, I do accept that the plaintiff is still experiencing some intermittent psychological effects from the accident, in the form of nightmares and fear of crossing the street. I find that these psychological effects are diminishing, and should not persist for much longer. The evidence does not establish a real and substantial possibility that these psychological symptoms will persist well into the future.
Mr. Justice Halfyard valued the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $40,000. The Court then reduced this award by 75% to take into account the Plaintiff’s own blame for his injuries.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.