Rose Keith Law 2017-10-18T20:32:42Z http://rosekeith.bc.ca/feed/atom/ WordPress Rose <![CDATA[The value of pain and suffering in a chronic pain case]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1378 2017-10-18T20:32:42Z 2017-10-18T20:32:42Z Reasons for judgment were released yesterday in the case of Ali v. Padam.  This case involved Ms. Ali’s claim for damages following her injury in a car accident that had occurred almost 6 years prior to the trial.  At the time of the accident Ms. Ali was 37 years old.  ICBC admitted that Ms. Ali […]

The post The value of pain and suffering in a chronic pain case appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

Reasons for judgment were released yesterday in the case of Ali v. Padam.  This case involved Ms. Ali’s claim for damages following her injury in a car accident that had occurred almost 6 years prior to the trial.  At the time of the accident Ms. Ali was 37 years old.  ICBC admitted that Ms. Ali was not at fault for the accident and the trial was merely to assess the damages that she was entitled to as a result of the injuries that she suffered.

ICBC conceded that Ms. Ali suffered from chronic pain as a result of the accident, but disputed whether there were other contributing factors that have caused her symptoms since the accident.  ICBC took the position that the accident only played a small role in the significant difficulties that Ms. Ali was having at the time of trial.

The trial judge disagreed with ICBC, concluding that as a result of the accident Ms. Ali has chronic pain, post traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder that combine in a debilitating fashion and have severely affected all aspects of her life.  All experts who testified at trial agreed that Ms. Ali’s prognosis for substantial recovery was poor.  In the circumstances, the trial judge awarded $180,000 as compensation for the pain and suffering that Ms. Ali experienced as a result of the accident.

The post The value of pain and suffering in a chronic pain case appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Rules for Cyclists – is it time for a change?]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1365 2017-07-14T19:24:24Z 2017-07-14T19:24:24Z In British Columbia the rules regarding road usage are laid out in the Motor Vehicle Act.  The Act has a broad variety of provisions and has a number of provisions that relate to cyclists.  The provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act in turn are often used by our Courts to determine who is at fault […]

The post Rules for Cyclists – is it time for a change? appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
In British Columbia the rules regarding road usage are laid out in the Motor Vehicle Act.  The Act has a broad variety of provisions and has a number of provisions that relate to cyclists.  The provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act in turn are often used by our Courts to determine who is at fault in a motor vehicle accident.  As a cyclist you likely know the dangers on the road and you understand how to safely share the road with motorists.  Regardless of how safely you are using the road though, there is always the dangerous possibility that your use of the road and a car’s use of the road will not align and a collision will result.  Unfortunately as a cyclist that will often mean that you will suffer significant injury.   The  provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the way that they apply to cyclists often lead  judges to make findings of fault that would likely be very surprising to most cyclists and that do not accord with the reality of  the way that cyclists use the road.  Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act cyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles and must not operate a cycle without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.  The Motor Vehicle Act requires cyclists to travel as far right in the lane as possible.  The Motor Vehicle Act also prohibits passing on the right except in very defined circumstances.  The section of the Act dealing with passing on the right provides as follows:

158(1)  The driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to overtake or pass on the right of another vehicle except

(a)  when the vehicle overtaken is making a left turn or its driver has signaled his or her intention to make a left turn,

(b)  when on a laned roadway there is one or more than one unobstructed lane on the side of the roadway on which the driver is permitted to drive, or

(c)  on a one way street or a highway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and is of sufficient width for 2 or more lanes of moving vehicles.

A frequently seen result in our Courts is that judge’s will use the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act as a guide to determine whether a cyclist has been negligent when a collision with a car has occurred.  The most frequent section that ends up being argued as an indication of negligence on the part of the cyclist is that they are passing vehicles on the right.  As a cyclist I know that this happens all the time and is really the only logical way a cyclist can travel.  When vehicle traffic is backed up and moving slowly a cyclist is not going to slow their travel to the point that the are not passing vehicles on the right.  But in not doing so, the argument is made that the cyclist is operating in contravention to the  Motor Vehicle Act and is therefore negligent.  An argument can be made that the cyclist is travelling in an unobstructed lane on the side of the roadway and therefore that the prohibition against passing on the right does not apply, but that argument may or may not be accepted.

Reasons for judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal were released earlier this week in the case of Ilett v. Buckley which clearly demonstrates how the courts analyze cyclists negligence in these circumstances.  The cyclist was injured when he was struck by a left turning driver that “shot the gap” between vehicles that were stopped due to a back up in traffic.  The cyclist was riding along the shoulder to the right of the backed up vehicles.  The road was one that was frequently used by cyclists, but was not a designated cycling route.  The motorist was familiar with the area and knew that there were cyclists that would travel along the shoulder.  At trial the judge found that the cyclist was in breach of the Motor Vehicle Act because he passed the lane of traffic on his left while he rode on the shoulder, but he exonerated the cyclist from any finding of contribution to the accident, concluding as follows:

[163]  Mr. Illett did not fail to take reasonable care for his own safety.  Cyclists frequently rode on the shoulder at the Intersection and many were doing so that day.  Mr. Ilett was visible to Ms. Mattina for a significant distance prior to the intersection.  There were no signals requiring northbound traffic on Admirals to stop.  Although Mr. Ilett passed the slowly moving and stopped lane of traffic which was on his left while he rode on the shoulder, it was commonplace for cyclists to do so.

The trial judge found the left turning motorist 100% at fault for the accident.  The motorist appealed that decision and the Court of Appeal came to a very different conclusion than the trial judge.  In analyzing the trial judge’s reasons, the Court of Appeal said as follows:

[25]  The judge did not say why she discounted compliance with s. 158 as being in any way a part of the standard of care Mr. Ilett had to meet to discharge his duty to ride with due care and attention.  She appears to have attached importance to the fact that other cyclists regularly rode on the shoulders (evidently passing vehicles on the right) and were doing so that day, but there is no evidence that any northbound cyclists on Admirals entered the Seenupin intersection, or any other intersection, in breach of s. 158, without endeavouring to determine if it was safe to do so.  When passing on the right, Mr. Ilett was acting contrary to the “rules of the road” in a way that became critical when he approached the intersection.  Had he not passed the large vehicle on its right at speed – as under the Act he was not permitted to do – the accident would not have happened.

[26]  Beyond that, however, the judge made no finding of anything Mr. Ilett did when he approached the intersection to discharge the duty of care he owed.  Notwithstanding the circumstances that cried out for the exercise of some measure of caution, Mr. Ilett rode on without slowing into the intersection, exercising no caution whatsoever.  Nonetheless, the judge identified no failure on Mr. Ilett’s part for which he was to be faulted in the discharge of the duty he owed.  She did not say why he was required to do nothing more than ride into the intersection as he did.  She effectively found he had no duty to exercise the care the circumstances required.

The Court of Appeal determined that fault for the accident should be attributed 50/50 as between the cyclist and the left turning vehicle, stating as follows with respect to what the cyclist should have done:

[29]  This principle is applicable here.  As stated, Mr. Ilett had a legal duty to exercise due care and attention while riding his bicycle and to have reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.  As quoted, the judge concluded that Mr. Ilett “did not fail to take reasonable care for his own safety”.  However, in light of the factual basis on which her reasoning is based, this amounts to an error of law.  It cannot be the case that a cyclist who proceeds at speed into an intersection in the circumstances with which Mr. Ilett was faced, without stopping or slowing down, can be said to have discharged his duty to ride with due care and attention and with reasonable consideration for others using the highway.  Mr. Ilett took no steps at all to fulfill the duty he bore as embodied in the Act and, more importantly, the more general duty in negligence law to take reasonable care for his own safety and the safety of others.  the judge’s conclusion that Mr. Ilett had not failed to take reasonable care for his own safety constituted an error of law because it amounted to a finding that there was no duty resting upon him to take what would have been reasonable care in the circumstances.

[30]  What would have constituted reasonable care on his part – the standard of care he had to meet – can, in the circumstances, have only been the same standard to which the judge effectively held Ms. Buckley.  She was held to be at fault for the collision because, as she made her left turn, she drove across the northbound lane at speed when she was unable to see whether the shoulder was clear of cyclists.  She was required to drive more slowly until she could see byond the large vehicle and ascertain what she needed to know.  Mr. Ilett rode into the intersection at speed when he was unable to see whether it was clear for him to do so because the large vehicle blocked his vision in the same way as it blocked Ms. Buckley’s vision.  He was required to slow down or if necessary stop until he could see whether the intersection was clear.  His failure to take what would have been reasonable care caused or contributed to the collision and the injuries he suffered.

In my view, the decision of the Court of Appeal was driven directly by the contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act with the cyclist ignoring the prohibition of passing on the right.  That is the only way that the decision to attribute 50% of fault to the cyclist can be justified.  The cyclist had the right of way.  The cyclist was proceeding straight through an uncontrolled intersection.  The cyclist is entitled to assume that other users of the road will obey the rules of the road, including the rule that you do not turn left unless it is safe to do so and the movement can be made without impeding the flow of travel of another vehicle.  The motorist was the servient driver and turned left in contravention to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.

This decision underscores to me the necessity of revisions to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and specifically a revision to the prohibition of passing on the right when you are a cyclist.  It is in impractical rule for cyclists and does not accord with the reality of bicycle travel.  The rule results in relieving motorists of responsibility for collisions with cyclists where clearly the fault for the accident lies in the actions of the motorist.  Unfortunately, until we have a revision to the provisions of the Act judge’s hands will be bound and they will be forced to find actions like that of this cyclist as negligent.

The post Rules for Cyclists – is it time for a change? appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Valuing Pain and Suffering]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1362 2017-07-10T21:18:08Z 2017-07-10T21:18:08Z I have written many previous blog posts explaining how our courts value pain and suffering in determining awards to injured plaintiffs.  One of the fundamentals of the award is that the award must be fair and reasonable to both parties.  Our Court of Appeal has listed a variety of factors that are to be taken […]

The post Valuing Pain and Suffering appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

I have written many previous blog posts explaining how our courts value pain and suffering in determining awards to injured plaintiffs.  One of the fundamentals of the award is that the award must be fair and reasonable to both parties.  Our Court of Appeal has listed a variety of factors that are to be taken into consideration in making the award, those factors include the age of the plaintiff, the nature of the injury, severity and duration of pain, disability, emotional suffering, loss or impairment of life, impairment of family, marital and social relationships, impairment of physical and mental abilities and loss of lifestyle.

The recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Ponsart v. Kong illustrates how these factors are assessed in determining an appropriate award for pain and suffering.  The young female plaintiff was injured in two motor vehicle accidents, the first of which occurred five years prior to the trial and the second three years later.  The trial judge’s conclusions with respect to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff and their impact on her are summarized at paragraph 80 as follows:

[80]…The plaintiff was relatively young when the accidents occurred;  she is likely to suffer a mild degree of pain in her neck and back for the foreseeable future.  However, the pain is not disabling.  She is able to work and take part in most recreational activities.  For a period of time, her relationships with family and friends were impaired but she now seems to have re-engaged socially in a positive way.  She also suffered emotionally as a result of the accidents in part because of her anxious predisposition.  However, I accept Dr. Riar’s opinion that as her psychological symptoms improve so will her pain condition and she will be better able to deal with any residual symptoms.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff suffered a Grade II strain of her neck and low back and in addition experienced significant anxiety and depression.  By the spring of 2016 the plaintiff’s physical condition was manageable but her pain had become chronic.  She was left with a minor degree of chronic neck and low back pain.  By the time of trial she was able to manage all tasks of daily living and most of her recreational pursuits most of the time.  However, because of the accidents she was now more susceptible to anxiety and depression.  The judge found that an appropriate award for pain and suffering in the circumstances was $85,000.

The post Valuing Pain and Suffering appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Progressive Discipline – the importance of sticking to the plan!]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1349 2017-05-31T20:10:20Z 2017-05-31T20:10:20Z A lot of companies have progressive discipline policies and if the policy is followed correctly it can provide a justification for termination.  A recent Canada Labour Arbitration highlighted the potential pitfalls of not following the progressive discipline policy and in particular that the failure to do so can turn what may have been a justified […]

The post Progressive Discipline – the importance of sticking to the plan! appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

A lot of companies have progressive discipline policies and if the policy is followed correctly it can provide a justification for termination.  A recent Canada Labour Arbitration highlighted the potential pitfalls of not following the progressive discipline policy and in particular that the failure to do so can turn what may have been a justified termination into an unjust termination, entitling the terminated employee to significant damages.  In the case of Dominato v. Windsor Disposal Services Ltd., the complainant worked as a front end driver for the employer’s disposal service.  He was suspended and ultimately dismissed after a series of incidents where he caused damage to the property of the employer and others.  The complainant alleged that he was unjustly dismissed.  The employer said that it had just cause to dismiss him, based on its progressive discipline policy.

The progressive discipline policy of the employer provided for a progression through various steps including verbal warning, written warning, suspension without pay and ultimately termination.  The adjudicator highlighted that the “purpose of progressive discipline is to seek to correct an employee’s conduct by imposing progressively increased disciplinary sanctions until it is determined that further improvement is unlikely and that a “culminating incident” warrants dismissal.  After finding that the pattern of discipline imposed by the employer was clearly not progressive, and was not in accordance with their policy, the adjudicator found that the employer did not have just cause.

This case serves as a reminder to employers to ensure both that they have a progressive discipline policy and also to ensure that it is followed so that the employee is subjected to progressively increasing disciplinary sanctions.  Doing so will assist in establishing just cause for the termination of an employee.

The post Progressive Discipline – the importance of sticking to the plan! appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Determining awards for pain and suffering]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1346 2017-05-24T19:40:36Z 2017-05-24T19:40:36Z A component of any personal injury claim is the claim for non pecuniary damages, or for compensation for the pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life experienced by a plaintiff following injury.  Reasons for judgment were released today in the case of Cantwell v. Warren and in this decision, Mr. Justice Macintosh provides a great […]

The post Determining awards for pain and suffering appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

A component of any personal injury claim is the claim for non pecuniary damages, or for compensation for the pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life experienced by a plaintiff following injury.  Reasons for judgment were released today in the case of Cantwell v. Warren and in this decision, Mr. Justice Macintosh provides a great summary of the principles that are applied by the courts in determining an award for pain and suffering.  This case concerned the claim of a 29 year old woman who was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2011. In analyzing the claim for non pecuniary damages, Justice Macintosh quote from the decision of Saunders J. in Khudabux v. McClary as follows:

[143]  The purpose of non-pecuniary damage awards in personal injury cases was summarized recently by Mr. Justice Jenkins in Bove v. Wilson, 2016 BCSCV 1620:

[41]  Non pecuniary damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of amenities.  The compensation awarded should be fair to all parties, and fairness is measured against awards made in comparable cases (Trites v. Penner, 2010 BCSC 882 at paras. 188 – 189; Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alta. Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 at paras. 243 – 44).  Such cases, though helpful, serve only as a rough guide.  Each case depends on its own unique facts (Trites).

[42]…The factors emphasized by Madam Justice Kirkpatrick in Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34, have been referred to and followed by judges of this court on many occasions and are most instructive in assessing non pecuniary damages…

[144]  In Stapley, Kirkpatrick J.A. stated:

[45]  Before embarking on that task, I think it is instructive to reiterate the underlying purpose of non-pecuniary damages.  Much, of course, has been said about this topic.  However, given the not-infrequent inclination by lawyers and judges to compare only injuries, the following passage from Lindal v. Lindal, [[1981] 2 SCR 629] at 637 is a helpful reminder:

Thus the amount of an award for non pecuniary damage should not depend alone upon the seriousness of the injury but upon its ability to ameliorate the condition of the victim considering his or her particular situation.  It therefore will not follow that in considering what part of the maximum should be awarded the gravity of the injury alone will be determinative.  An appreciation of the individual’s loss is the key and the “need for solace will not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of the injury”  (Cooper-Stephenson and Saunders, personal Injury Damages in Canada (1981), at p. 373).  In dealing with an award of this nature it will be impossible to develop a “tariff”.  An award will vary in each case “to meet the specific circumstances of the individual case” (Thornton at p. 284 of S.C.R.)…

[145]  Personal injury damages are compensatory, or restitutionary; as with all tort damages, they are intended to restore an injured plaintiff, as much as can be done through a monetary award, to the state they would have been in had the injury never occurred.  The assessment of damages entails a comparison of the plaintiff’s current state with what the Supreme Court of Canada in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, termed the plaintiff’s “original position”.  To ensure that a defendant justly compensated a plaintiff, consideration of this “original position” entails not only an examination of the plaintiff’s condition at the time the subject injury is sustained, but also consideration of what condition the plaintiff would have gone on to attain but for the defendant’s conduct…

The above provides a great explanation of the process that is undertaken in assessing an award for pain and suffering.  The first step is an analysis and understanding of the plaintiff’s original position and what that condition would have been without the injury.  Consideration of the loss that the individual has suffered then follows with an assessment of what award will be necessary to meet the specific circumstances of that individual.  This decision highlights the individual nature of any award of pain and suffering.

In our newsletter and on this blog we often will review decisions of judges and explain the awards that are made for pain and suffering in any particular case.  As is noted in this decision, while those decisions help in understanding the various factors that go into the assessment and help in understanding the way in which a claim for pain and suffering is valued, every case is judged on its own particular circumstances and an award in one case will not necessarily be determinative of an award in another case.

The post Determining awards for pain and suffering appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Independent contractor or employee?]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1343 2017-05-16T21:29:59Z 2017-05-16T21:29:59Z A recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision, Glimhagen v. GWR Resources Inc. considered the difficult issue of when an individual is an employee versus an independent contractor.  The decision arose because of the without cause termination of the plaintiff.  One of factors taken into consideration in assessing the period of notice due to a terminated employee is the length […]

The post Independent contractor or employee? appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

A recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision, Glimhagen v. GWR Resources Inc. considered the difficult issue of when an individual is an employee versus an independent contractor.  The decision arose because of the without cause termination of the plaintiff.  One of factors taken into consideration in assessing the period of notice due to a terminated employee is the length of the employment.  Although at the time of his termination the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and had been so for two years, he had spent another 21 years working with the defendant.  The plaintiff alleged that during that 21 years he was essentially a “dependent” contractor and thereby entitled to be treated like an employee.  The defendant argued that during those 21 years he was an independent contractor and therefore that time period should not be taken into consideration in determining notice.

Mr. Justice Rogers summarized the indicia of dependent contractorship established by the case law as follows:

  1. Whether the agent was largely limited exclusively to the service of the principal;
  2. Whether the agent was subject to the control of the principal, not only as to the product sold but also as to when, where and how it was sold;
  3. Whether the agent had an investment in or interest in the tools necessary to perform his service for the principal;
  4. Whether by performing his duties the agent undertook risk of loss or possibility of profit apart from his fixed rate remuneration;
  5. Whether the agent’s activity was part of the principal’s business organization – in other words ‘whose business was it?’
  6. Whether the relationship was long standing – the more permanent the term of service the more dependent the contractor; and
  7. Whether the parties relied on one another and closely coordinated their conduct.

After reviewing these factors, Mr. Justice Rogers concluded the following:

[71]  Taking all of the evidence into account, I have concluded that prior to the late 1990’s the parties were not so tightly bound together and their efforts were not so integrated with one another as to have made the plaintiff a dependent contractor.

[72]  I find that when the plaintiff took on his late sister’s role with the defendant, that status began to evolve.  By the year 2000, the plaintiff was an integral part of the defendant’s operation – it would have been very difficult for the defendant to have carried on efficiently in the plaintiff’s absence.  By the same token, although the plaintiff was free to pursue other business interests and he did in fact pursue those interests, his relationship with the defendant was, by the year 2000, well ingrained and established.

[73]  for these reasons, I find that as of the year 2000 the plaintiff was a dependent contractor for the defendant.  It is from that year that the plaintiff’s entitlement to notice credit starts to accumulate.

The plaintiff’s employment was for a 12 year period, which resulted in an award of damages for failure to provide notice equivalent to what the plaintiff would have earned in a 12 month period.

The post Independent contractor or employee? appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Valuing pain and suffering caused by a car accident]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1339 2017-05-16T21:12:10Z 2017-05-16T21:12:10Z Reasons for judgment were released yesterday in the decision of Kingston v. Warden.  This case concerned the claim for damages of a 54 year old female plaintiff who was injured in a car accident which occurred four years prior to the trial.  The injuries suffered by the plaintiff in that accident and the impact of those […]

The post Valuing pain and suffering caused by a car accident appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

Reasons for judgment were released yesterday in the decision of Kingston v. Warden.  This case concerned the claim for damages of a 54 year old female plaintiff who was injured in a car accident which occurred four years prior to the trial.  The injuries suffered by the plaintiff in that accident and the impact of those injuries on her is described in the reasons for judgment as follows:

[136]  Before the accident the plaintiff was an active, fit person.  While the defendant, Mr. Warden, characterized the accident as fairly minor, I accept the plaintiff’s perception of the accident as frightening to her.  The plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in addition to a worsening of headaches.  Her neck pain continues to limit her activities, although the experts have said she can return to her usual activity level, bearing in mind she may not be able to snowboard or do other activities for a long or as vigorously as before the accident.

[137]  The plaintiff underwent surgery to address pain and the appearance of her left breast, which conditions resulted from the accident.  The plaintiff suffered a loss of self-esteem and increased her consumption of alcohol to cope with her pain, although I cannot find she has proven an addiction to alcohol stemming from the accident.  I accept that the plaintiff has isolated herself from her formerly active social life and her relationship with her husband is not as close as it was before the accident.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff continued to suffer neck pain at the time of the accident and that while there may be some improvement with further treatment there was no evidence that the neck pain would ever go away.  She also concluded that the plaintiff had increased headaches for a period of time, in addition to the breast injury.

After considering cases relied upon by plaintiff’s counsel with a range of damages awarded for pain and suffering from $85,000 – $125,000 and cases relied upon by defendant’s counsel with a range of damages from $60,000 – $80,000, the trial judge concluded that an award of $100,000 for pain and suffering was appropriate for the plaintiff’s case.

The post Valuing pain and suffering caused by a car accident appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Free motorcycle skills training sessions!!]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1335 2017-05-10T00:26:54Z 2017-05-10T00:26:54Z Local police will be conducting two free motor cycle training sessions this month.  The first one is on Saturday May 13 at the Burnaby Lake Rugby Club parking lot.  The purpose of the session is to provide motorcyclists with the skills and confidence that they need to ride safely.  You can get more information about […]

The post Free motorcycle skills training sessions!! appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

Local police will be conducting two free motor cycle training sessions this month.  The first one is on Saturday May 13 at the Burnaby Lake Rugby Club parking lot.  The purpose of the session is to provide motorcyclists with the skills and confidence that they need to ride safely.  You can get more information about this event here.

The second session will be held on Sunday May 14 in Victoria at 4461 Interurban Road.  Information on this event can be found here.

The post Free motorcycle skills training sessions!! appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[ICBC urging motorists to keep motorcyclists safe by sharing the road]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1331 2017-05-10T00:21:23Z 2017-05-10T00:21:23Z May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month and with the fabulous spring weather upon us there will be more motorcycles on the roads.  ICBC reports that sixty percent of motorcycle crashes in BC involve another vehicle.   ICBC reports that last year in BC 1600 motorcyclists were injured in 2600 crashes.   ICBC s urging everyone to share […]

The post ICBC urging motorists to keep motorcyclists safe by sharing the road appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month and with the fabulous spring weather upon us there will be more motorcycles on the roads.  ICBC reports that sixty percent of motorcycle crashes in BC involve another vehicle.   ICBC reports that last year in BC 1600 motorcyclists were injured in 2600 crashes.   ICBC s urging everyone to share the roads safely with motorcycles and yield the right of way at intersections.  ICBC has the following tips for drivers:

  • Give extra space when passing a motorcycle:  Allow at least three seconds following distance when you’re behind a motorcycle.
  • Scan intersections:  As with other vulnerable road users, the majority of car crashes involving motorcycles happen in intersections.  Drivers need to look out for motorcycles – especially when turning left – they can be harder to see and it can be tough to judge how fast they’re travelling.
  • Leave your phone alone:  stay focused and avoid distractions that take your mind off driving and your eyes off the road.
  • Share the road with motorcycles:  If in doubt about who has the right of way, yield to the motorcycle.

ICBC has the following tips for riders:

  • Wear all the gear, all the time:  This includes a helmet that meets DOT, Snell or ECE safety standards and safety gear designed for riding.  In all weather conditions, wearing proper motorcycle safety gear is key to reducing the severity of injuries in the event of a crash.
  • Be bright and visible:  Protect yourself and your passengers from serious injury by choosing gear that has bright colours and reflective materials.
  • Manoeuvre intersections safely:  Especially where oncoming traffic is waiting to turn left, adjuster your lane position and reduce your speed so you’ll have an escape path or time to stop if you need it.
  • Share the road with vehicles:  Never assume a driver has seen you.  They may not accurately judge our distance or speed of approach.  As best you can, stay out of drivers’ blind spots.

LOOK TWICE.  SAVE A LIFE.

The post ICBC urging motorists to keep motorcyclists safe by sharing the road appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>
Rose <![CDATA[Damages for loss of opportunity to marry]]> http://rosekeith.bc.ca/?p=1317 2017-04-24T21:50:29Z 2017-04-24T21:50:29Z A recent British Columbia supreme court decision considered a claim for loss of opportunity to marry.  The case of Wilhelmson v. Dumma concerned the female plaintiff’s claim for damages after she suffered significant injuries in a motor vehicle accident.  Her claim and the resulting decision concerned a number of interesting legal issues in the assessment of […]

The post Damages for loss of opportunity to marry appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>

A recent British Columbia supreme court decision considered a claim for loss of opportunity to marry.  The case of Wilhelmson v. Dumma concerned the female plaintiff’s claim for damages after she suffered significant injuries in a motor vehicle accident.  Her claim and the resulting decision concerned a number of interesting legal issues in the assessment of damages following catastrophic injury.  One of the claims considered was a claim for the loss of opportunity to marry.  Madam Justice Sharma explained that this claim is for damages for the loss of forming an interdependent relationship that would be expected to produce financial benefits.  The test for establishing the claim is has the plaintiff established that there is a real and substantial possibility that the plaintiff has been impaired in her ability to enter into a permanent relationship.  An award for the loss of opportunity to marry is a recognition that with the loss of interdependency comes a loss of the benefit of increased income, shared expenses and shared homemaking.  An award for the loss of opportunity to marry is not meant to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of a particular relationship.

Madam Justice Sharma’s conclusions with respect to the claim for loss of opportunity to marry are found at paragraph 340 where she states the following:

[340]  Given that her psychiatric prognosis is guarded, I find the evidence does prove on a balance of probabilities that her ability to form a permanent interdependent relationship has been impaired.  The test is only that she establish that there is a real and substantial possibility she will be impaired; she does not have to prove she will not enter an interdependent relationship, but only that her capacity and ability to do so has been impaired.  The evidence easily and clearly meets that test.  She is entitled to an award to compensate her for that loss.

Madam Justice Sharma then took into consideration expert evidence to assist her in calculating the loss associated with the loss of opportunity to marry.  This evidence analyzed different family incomes and the impact of jointly shared expenses that is associated with an interdependent relationship.  This formed the basis of her assessment of the additional income that would be necessary for the plaintiff to achieve the income she would have enjoyed had she been in an interdependent relationship.  An award of $325,000 for this loss was assessed.

 

The post Damages for loss of opportunity to marry appeared first on Rose Keith Law.

]]>