Plaintiff awarded $100,000 in punitive damages following a hit and run accident.


The courts awarded a plaintiff $100,000 following a hit and run accident. Firstly, it should be noted that awards for punitive damages are relatively rare, and usually only occur in cases involving relatively extreme conduct.  Generally, punitive damages awards are reserved for wrongful acts that are so “malicious and outrageous that they are deserving of punishment on their own”.

In this case, a pedestrian was jaywalking when a vehicle crossed the yellow line and struck them on their left side. The pedestrian had been looking to their right, as that was the direction traffic in her lane was actually coming from. The driver continued driving. He later denied being the driver of his vehicle or that his vehicle was involved in the incident, despite a slew of witnesses and evidence that showed otherwise.

The judge decided that the driver’s actions were “worthy of denunciation and retribution” beyond the compensatory award for injury. The driver had not only failed to stop after striking a pedestrian and been dishonest about their involvement in the accident, but also had been driving while their driver’s license was suspended.

This was a tragic case that involved a young woman who suffered significant injuries, including a head injury and a fractured skull. This incident was made worse by the actions of a driver who refused to take responsibility for their actions.

When should you treat your injuries from a motor vehicle collision?

The simple answer is as soon as possible. If you’re injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is very important to get your health care providers involved immediately. Health care providers – such as qualified doctors, physiotherapists, and massage therapists – can not only help you recover from your injuries faster, but may be vital to potential personal injury claims.

In a recent supreme court of British Columbia case, lawyers hired by ICBC to represent the defendants tried to advance the argument that a plaintiff’s failure to begin an active rehabilitation program in a timely manner should result in them receiving a smaller award. In this particular case, the plaintiff had waited over a year before beginning an active rehabilitation program:

The failure to seek proper medical treatment and minimize damages is referred to as a failure to “mitigate”. The judge sided against ICBC and the defendants stating:

  1. The standard is one of reasonableness and not perfection. A mere delay in seeking treatment alone is not sufficient to prove a failure to mitigate.
  2. It is up to the defendants to prove that a plaintiff could have reduced their losses by seeking earlier or further treatment.

This case illustrates the importance of seeking proper medical advice and complying with that advice. As a personal injury lawyer, I always recommend that my clients seek proper medical advice and can refer clients to experienced experts. However, only medical experts have the expertise to recommend proper treatment.


Evasive Actions: personal injury claims without actual collisions.

This recent Supreme Court of British Columbia case dealt with a motorcyclist who was force to take evasive action while entering an intersection. The motorcyclist had the right of way, and another vehicle entered the intersection after stopping at a stop sign to the right of the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was able to avoid striking the other vehicle, but ultimately lost control of their motorcycle and suffered a significant injury while striking the ground. The courts found that the motorcyclist’s actions had been prudent in the circumstances and that they were still entitled to make a claim against the other driver, despite the fact that no collision had occurred between the two motor vehicles.

In coming to this conclusion, the judge applied a couple important legal principles:

  1. When avoiding a hazard ahead, a driver is not expected to make the perfect decision, only a decision that is reasonable in the circumstances. The existence of a better course of action does not result in a finding of negligence.
  2. It is up to the driver who has created the initial hazard to demonstrate that the other driver could have reasonably avoided the hazard.

In this case had the defendant been able to show that the plaintiff’s rate of speed had contributed to or caused their fall then the judge may have made a different finding on liability. However, neither side presented evidence to show that the motorcyclist had been speeding. This case once again demonstrates the importance of hiring legal counsel, and why doing so prior to speaking with ICBC can be important.

What is Whiplash?

The modern definition of whiplash, as it is used by various legal and medical bodies in British Columbia, traces its origins back to a study commissioned by the Quebec Automobile Insurance Society in 1989. The “Quebec Task Force” (“QTF”), which was the body commissioned with completing this report, provided an in depth report on whiplash, which included a “Whiplash Associated Disorder” (“WAD”) grading scale, which remains in use today.

The QTF completed their report at a time when much less was known about soft-tissue injuries and rehabilitation. As such, much of their report is no longer seen as valid, particularly the parts that relate to recovery time. The reality of long-term and even permanent soft tissue injuries arising from whiplash injuries is far more accepted now.

However, the grading scale, which is based on a score of 0-4, remains heavily in use. For example, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia references this scale on their CL-19 forms, which are routinely provided to treating doctors when a personal injury claim is made. The British Columbia Chiropractors Association has similarly adopted this scale. The WAD scale involves placing whiplash injuries into 5 separate categories:

  1. Grade 0 WAD: No complaint about the neck and no physical sign of injury
  2. Grade 1 WAD: Neck complaint of pain, stiffness or tenderness only and no physical sign of injury
  3. Grade 2 WAD: Neck complaint and muskuloskeletal sign(s) of injury
  4. Grade 3 WAD: Neck complaint and neurological sign(s) of injury
  5. Grade 4 WAD: Neck complaint and a fracture or dislocation

Of note, is that as you go up the grading scale, the descriptions of the injuries become less subjective and more objective. As previously discussed diagnosing a subjective injury largely involves relying on complaints made by the injured party, whereas objective injuries are typically physically observable, such as broken bones. As, the vast majority of personal injury whiplash cases involve primarily subjective injuries, hiring a competent lawyer to properly frame these cases is extremely important.

Injured party awarded $80,000 for a partial disability affecting her ability to work in the family restaurant.

The issue of wage losses is complicated and becomes more complicated when dealing with self-employed individuals with variable incomes. In this case, a 42 year old woman suffered right ankle and whiplash like injuries to her neck/upper back after her car was struck by another vehicle that was exiting a driveway. This plaintiff was left with ongoing and chronic pain. Additionally, the plaintiff had gone on to develop symptoms of thoracic outlet syndrome and psychological injury, including depression.

The plaintiff in this case was not given an award for past wage losses, but was given an award of $80,000 for loss of future earning capacity. Once again, the capital asset approach was used. The capital asset approach provided the plaintiff with an award despite the fact that her future wage losses were not capable of being quantified. The plaintiff, in this case, ran an Italian restaurant with her family. The courts acknowledged that despite the fact that she was unable to prove that she had suffered any past wage losses, it was probably that she would suffer from an impairment that would affect her ability to earn income going forward.

This case once again illustrates the difference between the two ways in which future losses can be assessed: the earnings approach and the capital asset approach. The earnings approach relies on actual calculations of wage loss and requires the use of mathematical formulas and relatively certain quantification of wages. The capital asset approach is a much looser approach, which relies on hypothetical and more general guess work. Once again, merely because there is uncertainty about future wages, that doesn’t mean you can’t be awarded fair compensation for them.

Claims for speculative business losses in personal injury claims.

This is an issue that arises somewhat of often in my practice. Can an injured party make a claim for a small business that they have not actually started yet. This issue was dealt with in this recent Supreme Court of British Columbia case:

The plaintiff in this case was a 59 year old woman who had hoped to start her own cosmetics business. She had been injured in a motor  vehicle accident and was claiming that these injuries were preventing her from running a successful multi-million dollar cosmetics business.

The plaintiff in this action had taken a number of steps towards starting their business, including:

  1. Incorporating their business;
  2. Acquiring stock;
  3. Labeling and branding her stock;
  4. Getting approval for sale from Health Canada; and
  5. Applying for trademarks.

Approximately 2 years prior to their injury the plaintiff held a private seminar, where she successfully sold various beauty products. Her stated goal was to hire a team of salespeople to sell her products via future private seminars.  The judge, unfortunately for the plaintiff, found various deficiencies in the plaintiff’s claim, including that:  her goal of having seminars with a sales team was vague; the plaintiff’s evidence about market conditions was inadequate; the plaintiff’s previous lack of success with this business should be taken into consideration;  the plaintiff had not devouted full time hours to her business prior to her injury; and the plaintiff, although partially, was not totally disabled from running her business as a result of her injuries.

As a result, the plaintiff was not given an award for past nor future loss of earnings for her proposed business. She was, however, given an award of $100,000 for loss of her “entrepreneurial spirit”. This amount was considerably less than the several million dollar claim that the plaintiff was advancing for loss of profits from her proposed cosmetics business.

This case illustrates the difficulty that many plaintiffs will face when making a claim for income losses, particularly when there is a high degree of uncertainty concerning their potential earnings.

Construction worker given $430,000 award for soft-tissue injuries sustained in car accident.

The injured party was a construction worker and father of 4 children. His work primarily focused on residential renovations and building and servicing green houses at big box stores. The plaintiff was fifty years old at the time of trial and had been injured in what the courts described as a “violent” rear end type motor vehicle accident. Although the plaintiff continued to work after the accident, he was limited in what roles he could perform and how long he could work for, largely due to ongoing neck and chronic neck pain after the accident.

In this case the lawyers for the defence tried to make the argument that since the plaintiff had been to acupuncture treatments for neck and shoulder issues prior to the accident, he must have been suffering from soft-tissue injuries before the accident that were not caused by the accident. Fortunately, the judge found the plaintiff to be credible and dismissed the defence’s argument, stating:

“Receiving an acupuncture treatment (or a massage) for the relief of soreness or temporary muscle pain arising from long hours of driving or physically demanding activities is qualitatively different from attending an acupuncturist as a result of an injury on the recommendation of one’s general practitioner.”

This was a very astute observation by the judge and was based on medical expert evidence from an expert in occupational medicine who stated “people go for massages all the time when they are working at physical jobs or go to their gardens and they do a bunch of digging”, but it “does not mean they have an ongoing back pain disability”.