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 an effort to rein in ICBC’s ballooning costs, the government recently made sweeping changes to the rules of expert evidence. Experts and expert reports are used to address the issue of damages that a plaintiff has suffered — such as wage loss, future wage loss and future care — that can be used by each side of a car accident claim to prove the extent of their injuries. Now, a plaintiff in a car accident claim will each be able to use one expert report for fast-track claims, and up to three experts and reports for all other claims.
A serious brain injury or chronic pain can greatly affect a person’s life and proving their claim can require numerous experts. Often plaintiffs who have suffered a severe injury from a car accident need expert evidence from vocational consultants, functional evaluators, doctors and psychologists in order to prove their claim for damages and lost wages. Formerly, plaintiffs under the Supreme Court Civil Rules were not limited by the number of experts they could use to prove their claim. Under the former rule 11-7, a plaintiff was not limited by the number of experts they could rely on to give evidence on their behalf. Defendants rely on their own expert to provide the court evidence often lending to the criticism that ICBC claims are essentially about “dueling experts”.As an example, in Sandhu v. Bates, 2018 BCSC 2116, a plaintiff who was awarded $654,509 claiming for physical and psychological injuries that disabled her from working put forward expert evidence from give experts: a chronic pain specialist, her family physician, a psychologist, a psychiatrist and her treating psychologist.
The new changes from the BC government limit the number of experts used in car accident claims. A plaintiff under the new rules is only allowed to serve and rely on up to 3 expert opinions in order to prove their claim. To tender additional expert reports, the plaintiff will have to rely on the court’s discretion to appoint a joint expert or another expert. As reported in the news media, the changes to the rules are aimed at discouraging what the attorney general has labelled “the disproportionate use of experts and expert reports that are now being used in motor-vehicle related court case”.
The concern about the new rules surrounding expert reports is that it limits an injured persons’s ability to fully prosecute their claim to the benefit of ICBC. A person claiming for injuries from a slip and fall or for some other negligence would not be under the same strict requirements. The new limits will apply to expert reports in non-motor vehicle cases starting in 2020. If you were injured in a car accident or by someone else’s negligence, give the goodfirm a call and let us see how we can help.
In an effort to rein in ICBC’s ballooning costs, the government recently made sweeping changes to the rules of expert evidence. Experts and expert reports are used to address the issue of damages that a plaintiff has suffered — such as wage loss, future wage loss and future care — that can be used by each side […]
In Parker v. Martin, 2017 BCSC 446, a chiropractor was injured while backing out of a parking stall. While he stopped to let a pedestrian walk by, another pickup truck that was also backing up bumped into his vehicle. Although it was a low speed accident, the plaintiff was injured as a result. The plaintiff […]
In Kodelja v. Johal, 2017 BCSC 164 a grade 3 teacher injured in a car accident was awarded $266,545.88 at trial for her injuries. Ms. K was driving southbound on Oak Street when a driver headed in the opposite direction attempted to make a left hand turn. The right side of her car hit the […]
Watch this video posted on Facebook by the Daily Mail which shows that a new car could save your life in an accident: Crashing cars What a 1997 car crash looks like compared to now! Posted by Daily Mail on Saturday, February 4, 2017 This video posted on Daily Mail’s Facebook page shows how driving […]
A recent BC case illustrates the difficulty faced by self represented litigants at trial. In Uppal v. Chung, 2017 BCSC 80, Mr. U was injured in two accidents, one of which caused serious disruption to his life. Liability was at issue in both accidents and Mr. U’s ability to receive any damages depended on establishing […]
A recent application at the Supreme Court illustrates that danger in allowing anyone to use your car. In Nagra v. Cruz, 2016 BCSC 2469, a plaintiff was injured in a car accident in June, 2011. The driver of the vehicle, E.C, had borrowed the car from a friend I. L who had borrowed the car […]
The goodfirm ICBC lawyers want to explain a recent car accident where a woman was struck at an unmarked intersection and found partially responsible. In Olson v. Farran, 2016 BCSC 1255, Mr. Justice Pearlman for the British Columbia Supreme Court found a plaintiff partially at fault for a crosswalk accident. Ms. O was walking to […]
The goodfirm ICBC car accident lawyers want to warn anyone injured in a car accident about the dangers of leaving the limitation periods for your claim in the hands of your ICBC adjuster. Under the Limitation Act SBC 2012 ch.13, there is a 2 year time limit to bring a claim for injuries, which includes any […]
The goodfirm ICBC personal injury lawyers want to draw attention to a recent judgement from the BC Supreme Court where a plaintiff in a car accident had her award reduced for failing to mitigate. In Mullens v. Toor, 2016 BCSC 1645, Ms. M was injured on her drive home from work. Although her injuries were […]
The goodfirm ICBC lawyers want to draw attention to a recent case where ICBC was ordered to reinstate an injured person’s Part 7 Benefits after they were terminated by ICBC. In Prosofsky v. ICBC, 2016 BCSC 1586, a plaintiff brought a proceeding seeking reinstatement his Part 7 benefits. Part 7 benefits get their name from […]
Vancouver personal injury lawyers read ICBC’s 2013 list of the top ten Lower Mainland car crash intersections with mixed feelings. As the following Supreme Court of Canada excerpt sets out, likelihood of harm is one measure of reasonable conduct when driving a motor vehicle. In other words, the greater the likelihood of harm, the more […]
In the recent WVA case of Reznik v. Matty, 2013 BCSC 1346 Mr. Justice Funt reviewed the law relating to the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The case involved an estate worth approximately $650,000 consisting of about $100,000 in cash or near cash and approximately $550,000 in real estate. The testator […]
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 […]