In this low velocity impact (LVI) Vancouver car accident claimGuzman Gonzalez v. Dueck, 2012 BCSC 792) the driver that rear ended the injury claimant refused to pay the claim alleging that the claimant was not injured or, in the alternative, any injuries sustained in the car crash did not cause pain and suffering beyond about six months after the collision.
Although it was a low impact collision Judge Burnyeat did not  accept the evidence of the at fault driver that his vehicle was only going one kilometre per hour and that the car crash only involved “a little love tap”. 
ICBC, on behalf of the at fault driver, submitted that if the court found the claimant was injured the award should be in the range of $4,000 to $5,000 and that any amount award should be reduced because of the failure of  the injury claimant to mitigate his damages. The judge rejected this argument and awarded the claimant $27,500 for pain and suffering stating:

[30] … I find that [the injury claimant] was not able to play tennis for about six months, that he had limited ability to play soccer, that he was less active on the dance floor for six to eight months, but that, after about eight months, he was fully able to carry on with all of his previous recreational activities.  I find that any further limitations regarding his recreational activities can be attributed to a problem that [the injury claimant] has with his knee which is in no way associated with the results of the injuries he suffered as a result of the accident.

[31] Taking into account the injuries suffered by [the injury claimant] as a result of the accident and the duration of the pain and suffering of … I assess the non-pecuniary damages of Mr. Guzman Gonzalez at $27,500.

This case is yet another example of the BC Courts rejecting ICBC’s low velocity impact policy. Posted by Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness B.A., LL.B.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment