April 28th, 2011
Slip and Fall Personal Injury
The Claimant was injured when she slipped and fell while shopping at Safeway (Charlie v. Canada Safeway Limited, 2011 BCCA 202) in Duncan, BC. She brought a lawsuit against Safeway claiming that it failed to fulfill its duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. This was an appeal of a decision of a Supreme Court Judge to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The claimant was shopping for groceries at Safeway on the date of the accident. As she approached one of the checkouts, she proceeded past a display of cut flowers, where she slipped and fell. In the course of falling she knocked over one or more of the buckets that held the flowers, so there was a considerable amount of water on the floor after she fell. There was, however, no direct evidence that there was water on the floor prior to the claimant’s fall.
The trial judge found that the claimant failed to establish that her fall was due to a hazardous condition of the premises. He also determined that the Safeway had taken reasonable care to see that the premises were safe.
The injury claimant appealed alleging that the trial judge was wrong in failing to find that her fall was caused by the condition of the premises, and also in finding that Safeway had taken reasonable care to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe. Read the rest of this entry »
April 27th, 2011
ICBC injury claim explained
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC, is one of the largest auto insurance companies in Canada. Making an injury claim with ICBC can be confusing and frustrating. That’s why many claimants take advantage of the opportunity and hire a lawyer to work for them. Experienced personal injury lawyers will be best able to prosecute your claim effectively while you focus on your recovery.
If however you choose to go without a lawyer or cannot find a lawyer to take your case, here are a few top tips to keep in mind when making your injury claim with ICBC:
- In BC we have a unique system for personal injury compensation which includes a government created vehicle insurance company called the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. If you are an insured you can make a “no-fault” injury claim with ICBC as well as an “at fault” claim against the other driver.
- Your no fault claim with ICBC requires that you first provide ICBC with a written report of the circumstances and consequences of the car accident. This must be done within 30 days as set out as follows in the Insurance(Vehicle) Act Regulations:
“97 (1) Where an accident occurs for which benefits are provided under this Part, the insured shall
(a) promptly give the corporation notice of the accident,
(b) not later than 30 days from the date of the accident, mail to the corporation by registered mail, or deliver to the nearest claims centre of the corporation, a written report on the accident with particulars of the circumstances in which the accident occurred and the consequences of the accident…”
- Your claim for no fault benefits with ICBC also requires that within 90 days from the date of the accident you provide ICBC with a proof of claim in a form authorized by ICBC.
- Remember that ICBC is not liable to an insured who, to the prejudice of ICBC, fails to comply with section 97 of Insurance(Vehicle) Act Regulations. It is essential to talk to an injury lawyer before you think your claim is out of time because if there is no prejudice to ICBC the late delivery of a proof of claim form may not bar your right to claim the benefits.
- Your at fault claim is usually and essentially a claim of negligence. The law entitles you to be put back in the position you were in before the accident injury if the other driver is at fault for your accident related injuries.
- If the other driver is resident in BC and the vehicle is also from BC then ICBC will be the insurance company defending the other driver.
- By law the insurance company defending a personal injury lawsuit must give you the policy limit amounts of the other driver.
- There is a time limit for bringing your claim against the other driver, which is typically, but not always, two years from the date of the accident. Again, if you think you are out of time to file your lawsuit, call a lawyer immediately as their are situations, such as advance payments on a claim, that can extend or vary the limitation period.
Personal injury law is always changing and, as a personal injury lawyer, I read new cases every day and follow all the changes in legislation and policy. The value of a personal injury case can change dramatically based on changes in the law, changes in evidence, or changes in the civil rules of court, to mention but a few. Getting legal advice for your injury case requires that you actually hire a lawyer that will review the specifics of your case. Documentation and testimonial evidence are critical foundations for any case so ensure your lawyer has everything requested.
I have been a personal injury lawyer in Vancouver since 1995 and most people injured in car accidents or other personal injuries that contact me have never hired a personal injury lawyer or filed an injury claim with an auto insurance company. What many people do not know is that you can talk to a lawyer for free after your accident and that many lawyers will agree to take your case with no up front fees. Posted by Mr. Renn Holness
April 26th, 2011
ICBC Brain injury claim rejected
In this ICBC brain injury lawsuit (Jampolsky v. Shattler,2011 BCSC 494) the claimant was involved in four car accidents all of which the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC, was the insurer of the other drivers. The claimant was a 28 year old Surrey resident at trial and at the time of the first accident the claimant was only 18 years old.
The injury claimant asserted that he sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) which left him with significant personality changes, memory deficit, and sensory deficit. The injury claimant said that the brain injury impairs his future employment prospects.
ICBCs’ position was that the claimant did sustained soft tissue injuries in each of the four accidents, and that he recovered uneventfully from each without any residual effects or impact upon his future employability. ICBC was of the view that the claimant should only get $10,000.00 for his pain and suffering and not much else.
the claimant, on the other hand, sought an award for pain and suffering in the range of $125,000 to $245,000, together with a claim for loss of future employment capacity in excess of $1,000,000. The sum of $77,000 was claimed for loss of interdependent relationship and $12,000 for future care. The later amount was comprised of the costs of physiotherapy treatments, cognitive training, and the increased cost of adaptive footwear. Read the rest of this entry »
April 14th, 2011
In this injury claim ICBC was denied a medical examination of the claimant(Labrecque v. Tyler, 2011 BCSC 429). This personal injury lawsuit arises from injuries allegedly suffered in three motor vehicle accidents. All three lawsuits are subject to Rule 15-1 of the SCCR, also known as Fast Track Litigation. The last accident was the subject matter of this particular court application. It is alleged that the accident aggravated injuries suffered by the claimant in the first and second accidents.
In accordance with the civil rules of court the parties to this personal injury claim were obliged to serve any expert reports 84 days before trial. Three weeks after the expiry of this deadline the insurance company lawyer advised the claimant’s lawyer that a medical examination had been scheduled for the purpose of a response report. The claimant refused to submit to the medical examination, resulting in this court application.
Master Bouck concluded that such attendance was neither required nor justified on the evidence presented. Similar applications have been considered by the court in the following cases: Wright v. Bauer, 2010 BCSC 1282; Luedecke v. Hillman, 2010 BCSC 1538; Boudreau v. Logan (December 19, 2010), New Westminster M120748 (B.C.S.C.); and Crane v. Lee (September 16, 2010), New Westminster M1000793 (B.C.S.C.). Read the rest of this entry »
April 13th, 2011
As a personal injury lawyer in British Columbia since 1995 I am often asked to prosecute injury claims resulting indirectly from an event. For example, a car swerves to avoid a truck going through a red light and the car goes off the road, hits into a fence, which releases a dog and the dog viciously attacks a pedestrian. Can the pedestrian sue and get compensation from the truck driver that ran the red light? Are the pedestrian’s injuries “too remote” from the negligent driving of the truck driver?
In this personal injury defamation claim (Stuart v. Hugh, 2011 BCSC 426) The claimant was an English teacher in Surrey, British Columbia and was on medical disability leave as a result of a mental illness, diagnosed as a bipolar disorder. During his disability he attended the school near to the time of the final bell and created a disturbance at the school. He was charged with creating a disturbance and pleaded guilty.
The claimant was agitated, aggressive, and uncooperative with the police constable that arrived at the school. The constable attempted to handcuff the claimant with the intention of removing him from the school premises. There was an altercation between them. There was a physical fight. The constable suffered a concussion for which he was subsequently treated. During the course of the altercation the constable deployed his Taser once or twice upon the claimant. Other officers arrived as back-up and the claimant was arrested and held overnight in custody before being released.
The claimant sues in this lawsuit for damages for slander. The claimant alleged that in the conversation between a Vice-Principal of the school and the constable Singh, the Vice-Principal made slanderous comments about the claimant which caused the constable to apply force in order to remove him from the property.
The trial was heard with a jury and the jury dismissed the claim, finding no defamation. During the course of the trial the school brought an application to limit the damage claims the jury would be called upon to decide. The school argued that the claims for damages arising out of an altercation with a police officer is too remote, as a question of law, to be left with the jury to decide, as a question of fact. Read the rest of this entry »
April 12th, 2011
ICBC car accident claim- Win or lose
In this ICBC costs of personal injury case ( Danicek v. Li,2011 BCSC 444) the claimant was offered $500,000.00 to settle her car accident case with ICBC. She rejected the ICBC offer and went to court where the judge only awarded her a little over $10,000.00. ICBC applied to court to have their costs, a contribution toward their legal fee, paid by the unsuccessful personal injury claimant.
In British Columbia we have a set schedule that is used to compensate winning parties to a lawsuit for their legal fees. ICBC was overwhelmingly successful in the defence of this injury claim and were seeking double their costs, special and increased costs.
The judge recognized that this personal injury litigation had become complex and that ICBC deserved an increased amount for a contribution toward their legal fee.
This injury claimant was also seriously injured in a dance floor incident resulting in the claimant being awarded almost 6 million dollars. These cases were heard together and you can read the post about that brain injury claim. The court was of the view that, Read the rest of this entry »
April 11th, 2011
ICBC injury claim lawyer helping with benefits
There has been little change to the law relating to filing and reporting your injury claim to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC, since my last post about car accident injury benefits from ICBC. In this article I will focus on some of the duties that ICBC owes to you as your insurance company once you make your injury claim.
If you are injured in a car accident, bike accident, pedestrian accident, or motor vehicle collision in BC and you have proper insurance with ICBC you will be entitled to medical coverage of up to $150,000.000 from ICBC and disability benefits of up to $300.00 per week to age 65. There are of course several exceptions and deductions that can only be dealt with by analysing the the specific facts in your personal injury claim and applying the current law in British Columbia.
To be entitled to these ICBC injury benefits you must meet the legal test with respect to the treatment and your period of disability. The claim is essentially for payment of medical, rehabilitation expenses, and other benefits payable under the provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and Part 7 of the Regulations arising out of a car accident which must have occurred in Canada or the USA. If you are outside the Province in a vehicle not insured by ICBC your injury claim you should really speak to a personal injury lawyer as there are so many variables.
Here is a useful ICBC injury claim checklist to help establish your entitlement to ICBC accident benefits and further injury compensation: Read the rest of this entry »
April 8th, 2011
In this truck accident injury claim (Parsons v. Mears, 2011 BCSC 397) the claimant, a Victoria resident, was operating a truck when it became stuck in mud. A good samaritan, Mr. Mears, attempted to pull the truck out of the mud using a cable and tractor. The tractor flipped and trapped Mr. Mears.
The claimant alleges that he suffered various injuries when attempting to rescue Mr. Mears. The injury claimant said that he suffered resulting pain and stiffness in his lower back, right knee and left hip. The insurance company defending the claim was seeking a court order requiring the claimant to attend to two medical examinations to verify his injury.
The claimant consented to attending both a medical examination and a work capacity evaluation. The claimant simply asked that such appointments be scheduled in Victoria and that he not be required to travel to Vancouver, BC. Thus, the narrow issue for determination on this application was the role that convenience plays when considering an order under Rule 7-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
The court found that the following principles are applicable to this discussion: Read the rest of this entry »
April 5th, 2011
Personal Injury Lawyer Serving Client
There are many more personal injury lawyers in Vancouver than anywhere else in British Columbia. That is why many claimants come to Vancouver from outside the Lower Mainland to hire an experienced personal injury lawyer. Once you have hired your lawyer you need to follow your lawyers legal advice in order to prevent problems in your case.
I have been a personal injury lawyer in Vancouver helping injury claimants fight the defences and denials of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ( ICBC ) since 1995. Since I began helping car accident claimants I have had to take over many cases from other lawyers due to the client no longer being satisfied with the other lawyer. I always agree to a free consultation if your case has merit so call me.
If you have decided not to call me, here are some important tips to help maintain a healthy relationship with your personal injury lawyer: Read the rest of this entry »