Our firm has collected and organized a number of personal injury court decisions in a publicly-accessible database, for use as a resource by law students, other lawyers and firms, as well as the general public. This database will include some of our firm’s results, as well as results from many other lawyers. For information about results from this firm only, please click here.
The British Columbia Supreme Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal are the sources for all of the cases in this database; these cases are not official versions of the material produced, and were not made in affiliation with or the endorsement of the British Columbia Superior Courts.
This is an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. In a judgment released on May 26, 2009, I awarded damages totalling $650,936.42. Of this amount, $280,000 was awarded for future loss of earning capacity and $160,700 for future care. My reasons for this award are indexed as 2009 BCSC 673....
On March 10, 2010 an application was brought to adjourn the two‑week jury trial scheduled for March 15, 2010. This is a personal injury matter, arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about August 24, 2004 in Kelowna, B.C., where liability has been admitted and the only issue to be tried is the assessment of damages. Counsel requested the adjournment for these reasons: 1. Counsel for the plaintiff is not available for trial on March 15, 2010. Plaintiffs counsel says that the date was agreed to by Ms. Pitcher on condition that her new counsel be available, and when he filed an appearance plaintiffs counsel advised defence counsel that he was not available on this day. Defence counsel refused to adjourn the trial. 2. Plaintiffs counsel also indicated that the damages are connected to damages incurred in 2003, prior to the motor vehicle accident, when the plaintiff fell at the Vancouver airport. She has commenced an action (S68745) and that matter has recently been transferred to Vancouver for trial. 3. The plaintiff says she is unable to attend the trial on March 15, 2010 because her father‑in‑law passed away and the funeral is being held on March 11, 2010. Not only is she not in a position to conduct a trial, but her husband, who is her main support person, would not be available either....
Mr. Murphy Costello (Mr. Costello) was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 26, 2006. Liability is admitted by the defendants. At issue is the quantum of damages owed with respect to the extent of Mr. Costellos injuries from the relatively minor rear-end collision. A complication is that the accident took place about three months after Mr. Costello had back surgery.I. Background...
The defendants apply for costs under R. 37B of the Rules of Court on the basis that they made a settlement offer that exceeded the award made to the plaintiff.BACKGROUND...
The plaintiff seeks damages for injuries received when he was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The accident occurred on January 10, 2006 just after 9:00 a.m. The defendant admits liability for the accident, but denies that the injuries are as serious as the plaintiff claims and alleges that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.Background Facts...
On December 9, 2006, a car operated by the defendant struck the left rear corner of a car operated by the plaintiff. At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was stopped at a red light for eastbound traffic on Kingsway, at 14th Avenue, in Burnaby, BC. The defendant approached from behind and, in an attempt to pass on the left, caught the left rear of the plaintiffs vehicle with the right front of his vehicle. The impact was unexpected. It caused moderate damage to both cars....
This is an application for costs arising out of an action for damages due to injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident. The trial lasted 15 days between June 1, 2009 and December 4, 2009. I issued judgment in favour of the plaintiff on December 15, 2009 in the amount of $31,034.64: Wittich v. Bob, 2009 BCSC 1721. The plaintiffs action against all defendants except for Mr. Wittich was dismissed....
This is an appeal by the plaintiff of an order of the Master on March 23, 2010. The Master ordered that the plaintiff, James Leo Agesen, submit to a medical examination by Dr. J.F. Schweigel, an orthopaedic surgeon, on March 30, 2010, at 2:45 p.m....
At the time material to this litigation, the defendants were an occupier of premises, as that notion is defined in the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 337....
The plaintiff and defendant Olson bring cross applications, both relating to the apparent dilatory conduct of this Rule 66 proceeding....
The plaintiff, Elio Fata, is advancing a claim for damages for personal injuries caused by a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 13, 2006. It was a rear-end collision that occurred when Mr. Fata was stopped at a traffic light. Mr. Fata was 59 at the time. Mr. Fata did not immediately think that he needed medical treatment and took no time off his work as an Electronics Technician at Simon Fraser University (SFU). As time passed, Mr. Fata felt that his injuries progressed to the point where he had too much restriction and pain in his left shoulder and arm to competently perform his job. He therefore quit his job of 38 years, taking early retirement effective as of July 2008. ...
Mr. Burton claims damages arising from three motor vehicle accidents, which occurred on April 7, 2006, November 9, 2006, and September 5, 2007. Mr. Burton brought a separate lawsuit in respect of each accident. I will refer to the accidents as the First, Second and Third Accidents. The trial of the three actions were heard together, with Mr. Cope representing Mr. Burton, and Mr. McDonald representing all defendants. The trial occupied eight hearing days....