Our senior Vancouver ICBC Brain Injury Lawyers know that a head or brain injury is one of the most serious and devastating injuries a Vancouver car accident victim can suffer.
Meeting with one of our Vancouver ICBC accident lawyers is FREE. We don’t get paid until you do. There is no reason to delay getting the help you need now. We are fluent in Mandarin, Farsi , Punjabi, Cantonese, and Hindi.
We can be reached at 604-602-9000. Or you can use our convenient online form to schedule your FREE initial consultation now. We can also be reached at any of our four offices in Vancouver, Surrey, Fort St John, and Kelowna by calling 1.877.602.9900 from anywhere in British Columbia.
The impact of a brain injury resulting from a car accident is profound. The life and health of the car accident victim as well as the lives of family members of a brain injury victim can be significantly altered, potentially forever. ICBC knows that brain injury claims are complicated cases and will often refer these types of ICBC car accident claims to their most senior Vancouver ICBC insurance adjusters. It is critical that you get an experienced senior Vancouver brain injury and ICBC car accident lawyer on your side, from day one. Our Vancouver ICBC claims and personal injury lawyers are available to help you. Our lawyers know that proper brain injury medical experts must be hired to ensure that the brain injury is properly diagnosed and assessed. It is crucial that a proper treatment plan put in place, and that ICBC pays the money you need to get the care you deserve. You might be wondering, how much money should I get for my ICBC brain injury claim? We fight to get you the maximum possible cash settlement so that you get the medical treatment and ongoing care you need while minimizing the impact on your family. When you get the money you deserve from your Vancouver ICBC brain injury claim, you get the best possible chance for a substantial recovery.
Our Vancouver ICBC car accident brain injury lawyer team in Vancouver can be reached at 604-602-9000 or by clicking here.
Our Vancouver ICBC car accident and brain injury clients often wonder how much money they are entitled to. Of course, the answer depends on the specific facts of the case. Factors that can affect a Vancouver ICBC brain injury settlement include the nature and extent of the injury, severity of the injury, financial burden on the victim and family, and the expected recovery time – including the possibility that the injury or injuries are permanent. The recent Vancouver Supreme Court decision in Clark v. Bullock involved a Vancouver ICBC car accident case where the victim suffered injuries to his brain, knee, shoulder, neck and back. This Vancouver ICBC personal injury claim case provides an excellent summary on personal injury law in Vancouver I CBC car accident cases and how it is applied to the facts of a Vancouver ICBC car accident brain injury. The court looked at what the injured car accident victim must prove to show that the injuries he suffered, including his very serious brain injury, were caused by the accident and not from some other cause. The case also explores the need for an injured car accident victim to take steps to try to mitigate the damages they have suffered from the accident. Negligence had been determined to be the other driver’s fault and some money award had been agreed to but pain and suffering damages, income loss and special damages were still disputed so the Judge had to decide these issue. Our Vancouver ICBC Car Accident Brain Injury Lawyers deal with both whose fault the accident is and how much money you are entitled to. Meeting with us is free and we dont get paid until you do. Here is what the court looked at: Background To Injury Claim
…Mr. Clark was 58 years old and employed as a pilot with Air Canada. As a result of his injuries he was unable to continue with his employment. The parties have agreed that he lost $150,000 net of taxes from his employment. In addition they have agreed that he lost $80,000 from his pension. Finally, they have agreed that he is entitled to $28,000 in future care costs, and $9,034. 22 in special damages. In total these amount to $267,034.22. By consent the plaintiff took judgment in this amount at the end of the trial.  The issues to be resolved are the amount of general damages, whether the plaintiff is entitled to anything further by way of past wage loss, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any award for loss of future income earning capacity, and whether he is entitled to anything further by way of special damages. Overlaid on the income loss aspects of the plaintiff’s claims is the question of whether the plaintiff has mitigated his losses.  Mr. Clark impressed me, as he did all of the health care professionals who treated or assessed him and who commented on the matter, as a straight forward person. In fact he was described by many, including his wife and his general practitioner, Dr. Herman Venter, as a stoic sort of person not given to complaining. General damages  Mr. Clark is a stoic person, determined to overcome his injuries. His physical limitations are modest in that he is able to golf regularly and well; and he is able to do many of the home improvement projects he did before, although he does them more slowly and perhaps not as well. He has, however, endured significant pain to reach this point. He likely will develop arthritis in his back. His shoulders continue to cause him pain if he adopts overhead postures. His mild brain injury has had and will continue to have consequences. He is more easily frustrated and no longer enjoys many of the sedentary but more cerebral activities he used to. Further he is aware of his cognitive limitations. For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that his cognitive limitations prevent him from working as a pilot. He enjoyed that work and feels its loss in more than merely financial terms.  Bearing in mind the foregoing authorities and the analytical framework in Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34, I think an appropriate award of non‑pecuniary damages is $120,000. Income Loss  As to the claim for loss of future income earning capacity, the observations of Garson J.A. in Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 at paragraph 32 are apt: A plaintiff must always prove … that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss. … Duty to Mitigate I am satisfied that Mr. Clark cannot safely function as a pilot due to his mild brain injury. I suspect Mr. Clark was aware of this problem quite some time before it was diagnosed by Dr. Bishop and that is at least one reason he did not pursue a medical clearance sooner than he did.  Plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate. As Rowles J.A. put it in Graham v. Rogers, 2001 BCCA 432 at paragraph 35: Mitigation goes to limit recovery based on an unreasonable failure of the injured party to take reasonable steps to limit his or her loss. A plaintiff in a personal injury action has a positive duty to mitigate but if a defendant’s position is that a plaintiff could reasonably have avoided some part of the loss, the defendant bears the onus of proof on that issue. … Special Damages  The only issue the parties have not been able to agree on is the amount that Mr. Clark paid to Andre Rivet for his labour in the construction of a shed on the Violet Road property. The shed was built in the fall of 2005 to house Mr. Clark’s tools and equipment. The plaintiff paid $8,023.53 to Mr. Rivet to do this construction. I am satisfied that but for the accident he would have done all the work himself. The defendant argues that the shed was unnecessary and to award any amount for this work would be to unjustly enrich the plaintiff. I do not agree. I accept that the shed was needed to house his tools and to provide a workshop. There is no question but that he paid the money; there is no suggestion that the shed is more than he would have built had he been able. I am satisfied this amount is properly recoverable. Summary and Costs  In summary, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment under the following heads in the following amounts: (a) general damages $120,000; (b) past loss of income $150,000; (c) special damages $8,023.53.  These sums are in addition to the $267,034.22 that the parties have agreed is due to the plaintiff for his income loss while with Air Canada, the cost of future care and the agreed upon portion of the claim for special damages.