This Court of Appeal personal injury case arises from two motor vehicle accidents March 8, 2018 and February 20, 2020. Additionally, the claimant was involved in a workplace slip-and-fall accident in November 2018. The trial judge, Justice Elwood, heard both motor vehicle actions together and found that the injuries, primarily to his neck, back, and both shoulders, were caused in the first accident and aggravated, but not divisible, by the later events. He dismissed the claim against Ms. Wong and awarded approximately $540,000 in damages. The Defendant appealed the findings on causation, indivisibility, and damages, while the claimant cross-appealed the assessment of his award for pain and suffering ( Behnke v. Pannu,2025 BCCA 182).
Intervening Events
The Court of Appeal addressed whether a defendant’s liability for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident should be reduced where the plaintiff’s injuries were subsequently aggravated by non-tortious events. The defendant argued that two intervening events, a slip-and-fall at work and a later motor vehicle accident, broke the chain of causation and should reduce his liability. The Court rejected this submission, reaffirming the principles established in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, and Blackwater v. Plint, 2005 SCC 58.
In Athey, the Supreme Court held that while a defendant is not liable for injuries they did not cause, damages may only be reduced where the defendant proves that an independent event caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s loss or that there was a real and substantial possibility the plaintiff would have suffered the loss regardless of the defendant’s negligence. The Court in Behnke confirmed this framework and held that the trial judge properly applied it. Despite the claimant’s subsequent injuries, the judge concluded that the defendant failed to establish that these events independently caused additional, severable harm. Rather, the subsequent events aggravated injuries that had already been caused in the first accident. Therefore, there was no basis to reduce damages on account of the later events.
Indivisible Injuries
The Court also addressed whether the injuries were divisible or indivisible for the purpose of apportioning liability. The Defendant submitted that the trial judge erred by presuming indivisibility and failing to conduct the proper legal analysis. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the judge had made a reasoned and factual determination that the neck, back, and shoulder injuries were indivisible, despite subsequent aggravation.
The leading authority cited on this point was Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361, which held that where successive injuries merge into one condition and it is not possible to apportion the damage, the harm is indivisible, and full liability may rest with the first tortfeasor. The Court in Behnke also endorsed Neufeldt v. ICBC, 2021 BCCA 327, confirming that aggravation of an existing injury often results in an indivisible injury unless the subsequent harm is distinct and separable.
Justice Butler emphasized that indivisibility is a finding of fact, not a presumption, and the judge’s decision that the injuries could not be separated in a meaningful way was supported by the medical evidence and consistent with the governing legal principles. Therefore, the defendant remained fully liable for the entirety of the injury-related damages, despite later aggravating incidents.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal heard the matter and rendered its decision on June 6, 2025. The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, affirming the trial judge’s findings on causation, indivisibility, and assessment of damages.
1 Comment