Who is at fault for a rear end collision?

Generally, the driver of the rear vehicle is at fault. Motorists have a duty to look ahead and keep a proper look out. Additionally, Section 162 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been interpreted to mean that drivers have a duty to leave significant space in front of them to allow them to stop safely without hitting the vehicle in front:

Following too closely

162(1) A driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the amount and nature of traffic on and the condition of the highway.

(2) The driver of a commercial motor vehicle or a combination of vehicles, when driving on a roadway outside a business or residence district, must not follow within 60 m of another commercial motor vehicle or a combination of vehicles, but this must not be construed to prevent one commercial motor vehicle or a combination of vehicles overtaking and passing another.

(3) The driver of a motor vehicle in a caravan or motorcade, other than a funeral procession, outside a business or residence district, must leave sufficient space between his or her vehicle and another vehicle or combination of vehicles to enable a vehicle to enter and occupy that space without danger.

The courts have also stated that there is a presumption that the rear driver is at fault, unless they can prove they are not. Defenses do, however, exist. Examples of situations where the lead driver may be found partially or totally at fault include, where:

1. The lead driver has stopped in a place they were not permitted to.
2. The lead driver has stopped suddenly and without sufficient reason.
3. The lead driver has stopped in a place where their vehicle is not easily visible.
4. The lead driver has made an unsafe lane change and "cut off" the rear driver.
5. The lead vehicle does not make proper use of their turn signals or brake lights or has malfunctioning turn signals or brake light.

As per the above, there is a heavy onus on the rear vehicle to demonstrate why they are not at fault for a motor vehicle accident. Only in exceptional circumstances will a lead vehicle be found 100% at fault for a rear-end collision and, thus, be unable to recover damages for a personal injury case.

Plaintiff given award for Early Retirement.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/17/19/2017BCSC1958.htm

In a recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision, a plaintiff, who was a 53 year old aesthetics instructor, was given an award of $27,000 to compensate her for the possibility of early retirement.

What's interesting about this award is that the plaintiff, who was only 53 years old, did not plan to retire until age 65, and these damages were entirely speculative. The judge was satisfied that there was a "real and substantial" possibility of loss and treated the possibility of early retirement due to injury as a lost capital asset. The judge then awarded the plaintiff a half a year of wages.

The plaintiff in this case had suffered a chronic soft tissue injury arising from 2 separate motor vehicle collisions. Just over 4 years after their first accident, the plaintiff continued to suffer from ongoing back and neck pain that was disrupting her ability to sleep and leading to fatigue. The plaintiff had to switch roles at work. She no longer was able to be as active in instruction and instead focused on administrative work. The judge concluded that there was room for improvement in the plaintiff's condition but no objective basis to conclude that the plaintiff would make a full recovery.

This case illustrates many of the challenges that arise when dealing with claims for future losses.

Courts decide that whiplash injury worth $1,190,562.70

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/14/2016BCSC1486.htm#_Toc458696781

This case involved a plaintiff that was injured in two separate motor vehicle accidents, in which he’d suffered whiplash type injuries. Complicating factors here included the plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative changes to his neck. At the time of trial, the plaintiff was 40, but he was in his mid 30s at the time of the motor vehicle accidents in question.

Following these motor vehicle accidents, the plaintiff’s injuries progressed to the point that his hands shook and his legs felt weak. His symptoms were relieved by surgery, but never totally disappeared.

Prior to these motor vehicle accidents, the plaintiff had been an active person who regularly participated in demanding activities, like rock climbing. He did have some pre-existing neck pain, but it was not of a disabling nature. Before these accidents, the plaintiff was also employed as a tax auditor for the Canada Revenue Agency. His job involved a mixed role of office work and visiting the homes and offices of those under audit. His job required some physical activity, such as carrying file boxes. He was also often expected to work in small and awkward spaces provided by those he was auditing.

After the accident, and despite having surgery, the plaintiff was unable to return to his previous hobby activities. He had returned to work but in a limited capacity and part-time capacity.

Of special note in this case was an opinion from a medical expert stating that the plaintiff’s pre-existing neck conditions had pre-exposed him to a worse injury from whiplash in a motor vehicle collision:

 On cross-examination, Dr. Wong agreed that an individual with cervical spondylosis is more susceptible to injury due to whiplash. Whiplash causes hyperflexion and hyperextension of the neck which can disrupt the muscles and ligaments supporting the spinal column. Whiplash can also accelerate degenerative disc disorder by damaging and weakening the outer part of a disc and making it susceptible to herniation and bulge. Nerves can become pinched or irritated as a result.

This case, once again, illustrates the profound effect a whiplash injury can have on a person and the importance of getting proper legal advice.