Car Accidents: You Must File Your Lawsuit Within Two Years

By Chris Trueman, Associate at Paine Edmonds LLP, Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer

If you have been in a car accident or otherwise injured due to the negligence of others, you have two years from the date of the accident to start a lawsuit.  Failure to file your lawsuit within the two year limitation period can be fatal to your case.  

If you are dealing injuries suffered in a car accident, ICBC has no duty to tell you about your two-year limitation period.  Reasons were released today in Field v. Harvey, 2012 BCSC 456.  In dismissing the injured party’s claim, Mr. Justice Bracken had this to say:

[6]             There was no further activity on the matter until July 31, 2009, when an ICBC adjuster telephoned the plaintiff’s home and left a message inquiring about her injuries. No response was received to that message.

[7]             As she had heard nothing further from the plaintiff, the adjuster closed her file on October 2, 2009. The next time the plaintiff contacted ICBC was not until November 24, 2010, almost sixteen months later. As the limitation period had expired by that point, the adjuster advised the plaintiff of the provisions of the Limitations Act and reminded her of the attempts to contact her. The plaintiff advised the adjuster that she had been too busy to return the calls. The plaintiff was advised to contact the adjuster’s manager to discuss matters further

…

[30]         It is clear from the case law that ICBC was under no obligation to warn the plaintiff that the limitation period had commenced, was not postponed, and would soon expire. It also clear that ICBC abided by the “preferred course” of action, as articulated by Huddart J.A. in Balzer, by including the following notification in their correspondence with the plaintiff:

Nothing herein contained is or shall be construed as either an admission of liability on the part of the insured or a waiver or extension of any applicable limitation period. It is evident that the plaintiff received this notification, given her handwritten reply on the letter in question and this statement should have alerted the plaintiff to the existence of the limitation period. 

It is evident that the plaintiff received this notification given her hand written reply on the letter. The content of the letter should have alerted the plaintiff to the possible existence of a limitation period that might affect her claim.

…

[38]         Limitation periods exist, in part, to encourage plaintiffs to bring their actions in a timely manner. The plaintiff has failed to bring her action in a timely manner and has not satisfied this court that there exists a lawful reason for her failure to comply with the provisions of the Limitation Act.

If you have been dealing with your accident claim on your own and are approaching the two-year anniversary mark, please contact our office immediately to discuss your claim.

Car Accidents and Broken Engagements: Claims for "Loss of Opportunity of Family Income"

By Kathryn R. Taylor, Associate at Paine Edmonds LLP, Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer

In a recent decision of the BC Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Wong dismissed a plaintiff's claim for "loss of opportunity of family income" arising out of a potential marriage.  In Campbell v. Swetland, 2012 BCSC 423, the plaintiff was involved in a serious motorcycle accident in which she sustained significant physical injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.  Prior to the accident, the plaintiff's partner had asked her to marry him and she said "yes".  After the accident, the plaintiff became confrontational and difficult to live with, and her partner broke off the engagement.  The plaintiff sought $250,000 for loss of opportunity of family income arising out of the potential marriage.  Wong J. dismissed the claim for loss of opportunity of family income on the basis that it was unsubstantiated or speculative at best.

War and Motor Vehicle Accidents: Opening Our Eyes To The Invisible Wound of Concussion

By Stephen Lloyd, Partner at Paine Edmonds LLP, Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer


I read an interesting article written by Jack Gruber in USA Today regarding the War in Afghanistan. The piece stated that official data from US military suggested that “concussions may be far more common in combat than previously known and may suggest that thousands of these casualties may have been missed earlier in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars”. Symptoms of concussion often include brief loss of consciousness, clouded thinking, dizziness and headaches. It is believed that 90% recover from their symptoms and return to combat, although this can take days or weeks. The USA Today story quoted military officials who admitted that in prior years “[…]we weren't doing things the right way". As Commander Earl Frantz wrote in his August 26, 2011 article for the New York Times, “Treatment for Concussion in War Zones”:

The idea of treating warriors for concussion during the acute phase in the war zone is a new concept. During the first nine years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if a service member was not bleeding or visibly broken on the battlefield, he shook off any cobwebs in his head from an attack and returned to the fight. As the improvised explosive device, or I.E.D., became the enemy’s weapon of choice, an unprecedented number of warriors were returning from battle with invisible wounds. Concussion, often called mild traumatic brain injury, is now the most common battlefield injury, affecting more than 300,000 service members since 2001.

Of course, I realize that this is war. This is combat. Nevertheless, what shocked me was that the rise in the number of concussions in war was not necessarily due to being directly struck on the head by an enemy combatant, or shrapnel, or a bullet, or…anything. It appears that many of the concussions were arising from simply being within the vicinity of some kind of blast. Any blast. As such, under a new policy implemented in July 2010, troops caught within 165 feet of a blast (about half the length of a football field) had to be pulled from the battlefield for at least 24 hours to be monitored for the signs and symptoms of concussion. The result of the new policy: the number of diagnosed concussions skyrocketed.


So what does this have to do with motor vehicle accidents?


Over the last dozen years practicing as a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer in Vancouver, British Columbia, time and time again I have interviewed clients who, when questioned carefully, reveal that although they have no overt signs of trauma to the head (bumps, bruises, cuts, etc.), they do have the symptoms of this somewhat invisible injury: concussion or mild traumatic brain injury.


The clues are often quite subtle. The client recalls the sound of screeching tires, and the next thing you know, the other driver is at their window asking, “Are you OK?”. They vaguely recall being hit but are not sure how their car got pulled over to the side of the road. After the accident they felt confused and “out of it”. They had an immediate headache, felt dizzy and thought they might throw-up. And after they get home it gets even more strange: food tastes funny or smells bad, the lights are way too bright, the wallet gets deposited in the fridge, they forget once-familiar phone numbers, keys go missing, and everything and everyone is incredibly irritating. And of course, most ordinary people would never identify these odd things with suffering a concussion. This is especially so when the person involved in the car accident either did not hit their head, can’t recall hitting his or her head, or “only hitting the back of my head on the headrest”. Consequently, these people simply do not discuss these things with their doctor…or anyone for that matter. They try to “shake off the cobwebs” and carry on.


Now, I am not trying to say that being in a car accident is tantamount to being in combat. Quite frankly, that would be offensive to those who have been through the horrors of war. I have some sense of that because my grandfather fought in the Second World War, and I had the great privilege of talking to him extensively about his experiences. However, perhaps we can benefit from some of the hard lessons learned from the experiences of these brave men and women, and apply them, at least to some degree, to our everyday experiences as ordinary people…ordinary people who sometimes get into car accidents and experience concussions. At least we can say that, in part, because of these tragedies, concussion is becoming less invisible to ourselves and consequently, to the family doctors who rely on our own self-report as much as they rely on any physical examination. After all, you can’t treat what you can’t recognize in the first place.

DISCLAIMER: Please note this blog is for information only and is not claim-specific legal advice. Paine Edmonds LLP can only provide legal advice to clients. Please click here to arrange a consultation with one of our lawyers.

Vancouver Lawyers, “On Your Side, by Your Side”

Welcome to Paine Edmonds LLP, a law firm located in downtown Vancouver. We are a group of experienced Vancouver lawyers who specialize in the areas of ICBC and Personal Injury Law, Insurance Litigation, Business, Property and Estate Law, Family Law, Disability Law, Employment Law, Medical Malpractice Law, and Mediation Services.

Our firm combines a long established legal tradition with a dynamic team approach to solving your legal issues. Our highly skilled and experienced lawyers and paralegals work together in specialized practice groups to ensure your legal issues are solved effectively and efficiently.

Paine Edmonds LLP also strives to serve the communities in which our clients live and work. For over 50 years, our firm has proudly supported a variety of community groups, charities, initiatives, and events in Vancouver and throughout the province of British Columbia. Our lawyers will continue this tradition for years to come.  A cornerstone of our firm's values is to give back to the community which we proudly serve.