BLOG

Recent Posts

Fort St John ICBC Whiplash Injury Claim and BC Personal Injury Settlement Lawyers: ICBC Neck and Back

In Schmidt v Hawkins the Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries that affected her neck and back. Although not rear-ended in this BC accident, the Plaintiff was T-boned at highway speed. The Defendant admitted fault thus focusing the trial on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation. At trial Madam Justice Hyslop made the following ruling based on the impact that the BC accident had on the Plaintiff’s quality of life:

[96] At the time of trial, Mrs. Schmidt was age 39. The accident resulted in causing injuries to Mrs. Schmidt leaving her with a stiff and painful neck, pain in her upper back and, in particular, between the shoulder blades and headaches.
[97] Mrs. Schmidt believes that her condition was not getting any better causing Mrs. Schmidt to have some minor depression.
[98] It impacted her social life and some of her activities. At trial, for the most part, she was back to her regular activities.
[99] As a result of her injuries, she required some assistance from family members and neighbours to meet some of her household and gardening responsibilities…

[141] I assess Mrs. Schmidt’s non-pecuniary damages at $45,000.00.
It is important to note that although this BC motor vehicle accident occurred at highway speed, not all back and neck injuries suffered by BC motorists happen at these speeds. In fact, many BC motorists involved in accidents resulting in back and neck injuries occur in what ICBC refers to as Low Velocity Impacts (LVI). In Mendoza-Flores v. Haigh, ICBC tried to argue that the Plaintiff could not have suffered any back or neck injury because in this BC car crash the colliding vehicle was not moving fast enough in order to cause injury. However, as Harvey J. made clear “the relationship between the damage to the two vehicles and the resultant claim for injuries suffered by one of the occupants, it is trite law that the fact that the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle was minor does not lead to a conclusion that the resultant injuries are also minor.” The Honourable Mr. Justice Harvey and the BC court went on the award the BC Plaintiff in this case damages for her injuries and loss including $40,000 for her non-pecuniary damages. Mr. Justice Harvey went on to state that the Plaintiff had experience moderate soft tissue injury that continued to cause her both discomfort and a problem for her in her ability to perform her job. It is important that your BC personal injury lawyer make the best possible case for you whether your soft tissue injury is a result of a at highway speed collision or a parking lot LVI. Come see the personal injury lawyers at the MacLean Law Group to help you put your best foot forward to recovery.

Written by James Macdonnell



alterFantastic Law Firm! Right from the very start, I knew I had called the right people.alter