Our ICBC Car Accident Injury lawyers deal with hundreds of ICBC car accident injury cases. Some of these cases involve multiple car accidents suffered by the same injured victim. In these cases the court must decide if the victim’s car accident injuries can be separated and compensated for and must be dealt with all at once.
Call ICBC Car Accident Injury lawyers at 604-602-9000 immediately after an accident so you don’t follow your accident with an even bigger mistake.
Multiple car accident injury cases require a lawyer who handles these cases regularly like an experienced lawyer at MacLean Personal Injury. We will meet with you for free at any of our 5 offices across BC at the hospital, rehabilitation facility or your own home. We have offices in Vancouver, Surrey, Fort St. John, Richmond and Kelowna.
Meet with us immediately to get a free initial assessment of what your case may be worth. Remember injuries may flair up or suddenly get worse months after the accident so rushing to settle is almost always financially fatal to the victim. Spencer MacLean will give you valuable free tips on recovery and how to ensure you maximize the money settlement.
ICBC Car Accident Injury Lawyers
Today, Spencer MacLean of MacLean Personal Injury’s ICBC Car Accident Injury lawyers extracts key portions of a recent decision on how a multiple car accident injury case is determined. Spencer handles ICBC car crash injury cases across BC and will come to meet with you if you are unable to leave your home or the hospital.
In McKenzie v. Lloyd the court assessed whether the damages were indivisible or divisible and decided all accidents were too interrelated to be dealt with separately.
Spencer MacLean of our compassionate and tenacious ICBC Car Accident Injury lawyers found the following paragraphs of this new case the most useful in explaining to the public how a multiple car accident injury case is dealt with.
In this case the victim received nearly $1.1 million for pain and suffering and past and future wage loss and other money loss.
 I therefore find that MVA#1 caused the plaintiff’s stroke, and that MVA#3 and MVA#4 exacerbated and reactivated his symptoms, thereby materially contributing to his pain, fatigue, cognitive limitations, loss of memory, stress and depression.
 Since the later accidents aggravated the injuries caused by MVA#1 and the resulting stroke, the plaintiff claims all injuries are indivisible.
 In Schnurr v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2015 BCSC 1630, the court stated the following:
 In cases such as this, where there are multiple causes of the plaintiff’s injuries, the court must determine whether the injuries are divisible or indivisible. In Sediqi v. Simpson, 2015 BCSC 214 [Sediqi], Madam Justice Fisher described the difference between the two types of injuries this way at para. 36:
Divisible injuries are those that can be separated so that their damages can be assessed independently. Indivisible injuries are those that cannot be separated: Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361 at para. 20.
 Whether an injury is divisible or indivisible affects both the causation analysis and the damages analysis, as summarized in Moore v. Kyba, 2012 BCCA 361 at paras. 35-43 [Moore]. First, the causation analysis determines whether a defendant is liable for an injury. Each defendant is separately liable for the divisible injuries that they have caused, and jointly liable for indivisible injuries that they caused together with the other defendants. Next, the damages analysis determines what compensation a plaintiff is entitled to receive from a defendant and again, individual defendants must compensate divisible injuries and indivisible injuries must be compensated by the defendants jointly.
 The court in Schnurr also acknowledged the statement relied upon by the plaintiff from Bradley, but ultimately found that the injuries from multiple MVAs were divisible, stating the following:
 In my view, cases such as Athey and Bradley are distinguishable from the case at bar. Both of those cases concerned plaintiffs involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents, and the effect of each accident was a live issue before the court. In Athey, the drivers of the other vehicles were both named as defendants and were represented by the same counsel at trial. In Bradley, the second driver was not a defendant but the plaintiff apparently testified at some length about that accident, its impacts on her and the relationship between the injuries suffered in the two accidents.
 The court went on to hold that it was possible to determine the plaintiff’s original position when the subject accidents occurred, and that the conditions suffered by the plaintiff, including prior conditions, were well documented in the medical evidence.
 The plaintiff is currently 42 years old and suffering from a constellation of symptoms which have been discussed in detail in previous sections of these reasons. The plaintiff suffered a stroke as a result of MVA#1, and experiences cognitive, psychological and physical limitations that have been contributed to by each of the MVAs where liability has been found.
Our ICBC Car Accident Injury lawyers want the public to know multiple car accident injury cases involving ICBC are complex and cannot be dealt with by the victim alone with any real chance of a favourable outcome.