Not Wearing a Seatbelt Does Not Automatically Reduce Injury Damages
In Chau v. Courchesne, 2026 BCCA 345, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed that a passenger’s failure to wear an available seatbelt does not automatically justify reducing a personal injury award. The defendant must prove that the failure actually caused or increased the injuries sustained in the collision.
The claimant was a passenger in a taxi in Richmond when it was struck from behind on October 29, 2017. She was not wearing a seatbelt. The accident caused a concussion or mild traumatic brain injury, with lasting cognitive and psychological consequences that seriously affected her ability to work as a senior executive.
Following trial, the BC Supreme Court awarded approximately $3.75 million and rejected the defendants’ allegation that the claimant was partly responsible for her injuries.
The Seatbelt Defence
On appeal, ICBC argued that the trial judge had incorrectly dismissed their seatbelt defence. An available and functioning seatbelt had not been used. However, the evidence also raised an issue concerning the taxi’s headrest and its role in the claimant’s head injury.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had made an error in treating the seatbelt and headrest explanations as mutually exclusive. Both factors could potentially contribute to the same injury. The court should not have treated proof of one possible mechanism as necessarily excluding the other.
Nevertheless, the defendants’ appeal on contributory negligence failed.
The Missing Evidence of Causation
The critical issue was not simply whether the claimant should have worn her seatbelt. The defendants also had to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that wearing it would have prevented or reduced her concussion or other injuries.
They had not done so. The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidentiary record did not establish the necessary causal connection. Accordingly, the claimant’s damages were not reduced for failing to buckle up.
This distinction is important. A person may fail to take an obvious safety precaution without that failure being a legal cause of the injuries for which compensation is sought. The court must examine the particular collision, the movement of the occupant and the mechanism of injury.
A Contrast With Earlier Seatbelt Cases
In Spence v. Yellow Cab Company Ltd., 2019 BCSC 1540, a taxi passenger’s damages were reduced by 25% because the evidence permitted a common-sense inference that a seatbelt would have prevented or lessened the injuries. Chau illustrates the other side of that principle: a common-sense inference must still have a proper factual foundation. This suggests that Spence was improperly decided and is inconsistent with Chau.
For injury claimants, the message is clear: not wearing a seatbelt may have consequences, but it is not automatic proof of contributory negligence. The defendant must prove that the omission made a difference to the injuries suffered.
