18 Mar Plaintiff Involved In Multiple Accidents Not Credible

In Saidy v. Louzado, 2019 BCSC 281, the Plaintiff was a self-employed taxi driver. Between October 2010 and June 2017, he was involved in five separate motor vehicle accidents. He was also involved in two motor vehicle accidents in 2006 that resulted in injuries similar to those allegedly suffered in MVAs #1 – #5. The 2006 accidents were the subject of a separate court action that settled in early 2010.

The Plaintiff testified that all of the injuries from the 2006 accidents resolved in the first part of 2010. He described his recovery as a miracle. He alleged that his current injuries were the result of MVAs #1 – #5. The Plaintiff’s evidence was that he suffered from soft tissue injuries, as well as headaches, anxiety and depression. The Plaintiff claimed general damages in the range of $85,000-$120,000 for his injuries.

The Defendants launched an attack on the credibility of the Plaintiff. They submitted that the Plaintiff had not completely recovered from the injuries caused by the 2006 accidents and that those injuries were indivisible from the injuries suffered in MVAs #1 – #5. The Defendants disputed the amount of general damages claimed by the Plaintiff, suggesting instead a range of $5,000-$10,000.

The Court found that the Plaintiff suffered no injuries in MVA #5, but did suffer soft tissue injuries in MVAs #1 – #4.  The injuries caused pain and headaches, which in turn resulted in an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety. The Court also found that the Plaintiff had not been truthful in his evidence and had exaggerated the effects of his injuries on his personal and working life.

The Court held that the Plaintiff had not experienced a complete recovery from the 2006 accidents, and that those 2006 injuries aggravated or exacerbated his later injuries. As such, the 2006 injuries were indivisible from the injuries suffered in MVAs #1 – #4, which were in turn indivisible from each other.

It was the Court’s opinion that an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages was $50,000. The Defendants were severally liable to the Plaintiff for their respective proportions of the difference between the global damages award, less the amount of the settlement of the 2006 action.