Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/richtertriallaw-production/public/wp-content/themes/richter/archive.php on line 16
In Dahl v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, 2017 BCSC 629 a women filed a claim against Translink and Coast Mountain Bus Company for injuries she claims she received during a minor fall while riding the bus. Ms. D claimed for a host of injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injury, memory loss, problems with focus and concentration, debilitating headaches, and severe sleep and wake issues.
Prior to the accident, Ms. D had been in a series titled Dead Like Me from 2002 to 2004. Although she had not been acting since that time, she claimed being unable work as an actress or freelance writer due to her injuries.
The plaintiff’s credibility was her own undoing as Madam Justice Murray found her evidence to be “exaggerated, over dramatized and unbelievable”. She noted that despite Ms. D’s claimed need for a walker and mobility aids, she did not use one during the 6 day trial. Additionally, Madam Justice Murray noticed that she had no difficulty staying awake during the trial and was able to stay alert and present for her case despite the claimed effects of the brain injury. Most damning for the plaintiff was the revelation that she had filed a false complaint with Coast Mountain Bus Company shortly after the incident. A voicemail left by Ms. D was played during the trial in which she complained about injuries she received on a specific bus and mentioned hiring a lawyer. A video of the plaintiff’s “alleged” trip on said bus was played for trial and showed that the plaintiff had not suffered any injury at all and there was no incident for the basis of the complaint.
In assessing the liability of a bus drivers and bus companies, the court applied the principles set out by the court of appeal in Benavides v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2017 BCCA 15. The Court set out the guiding principles as follows:
“ I draw from this review of the law the following principles:
The mere fact that a passenger is injured while riding on a public carrier does not establish a prima facie case of negligence.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the defendant breached the standard of care owed to the plaintiff.
Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of negligence, in practical terms the burden shifts to the defendant to answer the case against him and show that he was not negligent.”
After hearing the bus driver testify that he did not pull out too sharply or quickly and finding the plaintiff’s evidence to the contrary unreliable, Madam Justice Murray found that there was nothing abnormal about the driver’s actions and that he was not negligent and therefore not liable.
Although the defendants not to be liable, Madam Justice Murray went on to state that the plaintiff failed to prove that her injuries, which she found to be nothing more than bruising and soreness, were caused by any fall on the bus. Ms. D’s performance garnered her neither an Oscar nor compensation for her injuries.
In Dahl v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, 2017 BCSC 629 a women filed a claim against Translink and Coast Mountain Bus Company for injuries she claims she received during a minor fall while riding the bus. Ms. D claimed for a host of injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injury, memory loss, problems with […]
Under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act SBC 2008 c. 27, the government can require anyone who injures someone else to reimburse the Province for the cost of their medical treatment. This does not apply to injuries from a car accident, or in the course of employment. In British Columbia v. Tekavec, 2017 BCSC 613, […]
Between 2010 and 2014, over 81 people a year have been killed due to distracted driving. While it may seem harmless to fire off a quick text, the reality is responding to a text means your eyes are off the road for an average of 5 seconds. An accident can happen in a split second […]
In Dizon v. Losier, 2017 BCSC 431, a plaintiff was injured after being rear-ended by the defendant. The accident occurred at an intersection with 2 left turning lanes and the plaintiff was attempting to make a left turn. While attempting to make the left turn the light changed to amber and the plaintiff, not believing […]
In Widdowson v. Rockwell, 2017 BCSC 385, a plaintiff was injured walking home from work when he was struck by a heavily intoxicated driver. Prior to the accident, the defendant stopped at Cambie Malone’s bar for drinks where he consumed liquor. He then stopped briefly at his house before continuing on. He was arrested at the […]
In Binette v. Salmon Arm (City), 2017 BCSC 302, a women brought a suit against the city of Salmon Arm after she tripped on a metal traffic sign that was poking out the sidewalk. A crosswalk sign had been severed from its base and had remained in the sidewalk. It was later repaired sometime after […]
In Risling v. Riches-Glazema, 2017 BCSC 252, Ms. R was involved in a car accident and was awarded $622,500 at trial in Supreme Court. Prior to the trial, her counsel hade made an offer to settle with ICBC for $315,000 plus costs and disbursements under Supreme Court Rule 9-1. At a hearing for costs, she […]
Maestro Maestro is an interactive touchscreen program used with a big-screen television that has enhanced the way personal injury lawyers present evidence to injuries that cannot be seen by the eye. The user controls diagrams, documents and pictures on the television by swiping his/her fingers across the screen. The control includes cropping, highlighting and sweeping […]
Involved in a car accident? Richter Trial Lawyers | thegoodfirm has created this car accident checklist of things you should keep in mind when you’re involved in a car accident. We suggest that even if you haven’t been involved in an accident, in order to keep yourself prepared, you should print this and keep it […]