Blog
Menu
Blog

Personal Injury News

Personal Injury Case Statute Barred as a Worker/Worker Claim


In this Personal Injury Claim in Nanaimo(Milkovich v. Bucan) the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal ( WCAT)found that both drivers were working at the time of the accident and therefore the court dismissed the injury claim. The injury claimant’s case against ICBCwas also dismissed earlier and the claimant was required to pay about $1,800.00 in costs to ICBC.  Take a read through the WCAT decision.
The personal injury action relates to the claimant’s involvement in a motor vehicle accident at or near Prince George, B.C.  The claimant sufferred a brain injury as a passenger in a single vehicle accident while travelling to a construction labouring job.
This personal  injury case  is a good example of why you really need to get legal advice from an experienced personal injury lawyer about your case before you put yourself at risk in a lawsuit. When two people are worker’s in the course of their employment and a car accident occurs the law in British Columbia prevents them from suing each other for personal injury. In this type of “worker/worker” situation the claimant can claim against WCB and not ICBC.  Legal advice is critical in the presentation of this type in injury claim.
The lawsuit here was commenced out of the Nanaimo registry although the claimant is a Prince George resident. While not specifically addressed in the evidence the court  presumed that the Nanaimo registry was chosen to convenience the claimant’s lawyer, whose main office is in Nanaimo,  however, he also carries on a practice in Prince George through a “virtual office”.  Th issues remaining  and the findings were
1. Is the defendant entitled to units under items 18 and 19 related to the WCAT submissions? The court said no.
2. Is the defendant entitled to claim travel costs for Vancouver-based counsel? The court found that the defendant was entitled to travel costs for Vancouver-based counsel.
3. Should the plaintiff be required to pay for a rented hotel boardroom when a no-charge venue was available for the examinations for discovery? Plaintiff not required to pay.
4. Is the defendant entitled to units and filing fees related to the pre-hearing conference? This was disallowed
5. Is the defendant entitled to claim item 34 when the resolution of the claim was the result of filing of a notice of discontinuance? The court said no.
6. Is the defendant entitled to claim for filing the notices of change of solicitor? The Court said no.
7. Is the defendant entitled to claim for two attendances and two appearances with respect to the costs assessments on October 13, 2010? The court accepted part of this claim.
In the end the defendant’s costs were allowed at $7,169.33. When you add the $1,216.45 the claimant was required to pay to ICBC for that claim being dismissed, the claimant’s loss of this worker/worker case cost him $8,385.78 not including the costs of his lawyer and his own expenses.  Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness
Issue: Should an injured worker be able to sue a co-worker if the co-worker’s negligence causes the worker an injury?

Tags:

One responsePersonal Injury Case Statute Barred as a Worker/Worker Claim

  • ICBC Claim Process- Injured in a Car Accident and Back to School/Work | Holness Law Group

    November 9, 2013 6:43am

    [...] two people are worker’s and are in the course of their employment when injured in a car accident British Columbia law prevents them from suing each other for personal injury. In this “worker [...]

Leave a Reply

"Renn A. Holness is a gifted lawyer and author to over 1000 legal blog articles. Married father of two daughters, son of a neurosurgeon and founder of Holness Law Group."

read more

Schedule a Call

Contact Us





*lawyer confidentiality assured