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, […]
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 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 Ross v. Andrews, 2017 BCSC 338, a plaintiff was ordered to pay double costs to ICBC after failing to win in his trial. He was injured in a car accident in Surrey in 2011. After a 15 day trial, a jury determined that the plaintiff had not received any injuries in the accident. Prior […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
Just like the goodfirm ICBC personal injury lawyers, many BC residents have seen the ICBC anti-fraud commercials airing on local television stations. If you haven’t, you can see an example here. ICBC’s own website reiterates the claim that fraud costs every B.C. driver more than $100,000 per year on their insurance policy. According to insurance […]
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 […]
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 […]