Does small vehicle damage mean no injury? ICBC would have you think so, but medical science and the law are not on their side.
This issue was a point of contention dealt with by our Court of Appeal in the recent decision of
The Plaintiff, Ms. Greenway-Brown, had been in five separate motor vehicle collisions. She was assessed at fault for the first, but the innocent victim of the other four.
Each collision had resulted in very little damage to her vehicle.
The trial judge, who had come into the courtroom with assumptions about the relationship between vehicle damage and injury, dismissed Ms. Greenway-Brownsa国际传媒檚 claims in a decision cited as
Ms. Greenway-Brown appealed. A three judge panel of our Court of Appeal released their decision on April 24, 2019.
The Court of Appeal quoted from established legal precedent.
One case quoted from was from 1993. The judge in that case made the strong statement that an assumption that no vehicle damage means no injury has no application in court. He noted that sa国际传媒渟a国际传媒t is not a legal principle of which I am aware and I have never heard it endorsed as a medical principlesa国际传媒�.
Carrying on, that judge noted: sa国际传媒淪ignificant injuries can be caused by the most casual of slips and falls. Conversely, accidents causing extensive property damage may leave those involved unscathed. The presence and extent of injuries are to be determined on the basis of evidence given in court. Objectivity is thus preserved and the public does not have to concern itself with extraneous philosophies that some would impose on the judicial process.sa国际传媒�
In Ms. Greenway-Brownsa国际传媒檚 case, a physiatrist (medical specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation) had given sworn testimony that there is in fact sa国际传媒渟a国际传媒ery little correlation between vehicular damage and injury, and the severity of impact in a motor vehicle accident is one of many factors that can lead to injurysa国际传媒�.
The Court of Appeal found that the judgesa国际传媒檚 assumptions about the relationship between vehicle damage and injury to be without evidentiary foundation.
The Court of Appeal concluded as follows: sa国际传媒淭his is not to say that the severity of impact cannot be a relevant factor in assessing evidence of injury, but it is one factor, which must be grounded in evidence, not speculation. In my view, the judgesa国际传媒檚 assumption, unsupported by evidence, was an error in principle that permeated his approach to the evidence and his assessment of the appellantsa国际传媒檚 overall credibility.sa国际传媒�
Do you make the same error when you pass by the scenes of fender benders? Do you assume that small damage to the bumpers of vehicles means that the occupants are unharmed?
It is an attractive assumption. We like to think that we are safe, that smaller impacts occurring so regularly on our roadways will not seriously hurt us.
We are reinforced in that thinking when we see those involved in smaller impacts get out of their vehicles, appearing perfectly fine. And when we listen to media reports inaccurately reporting sa国际传媒渘o injuriessa国际传媒� without knowing how crash injuries work.
The reality is that for typical car crash injuries, it takes time for injured tissues to become inflamed.
What are other words for when assumptions are made without evidentiary foundation? How about all those sa国际传媒渋smssa国际传媒�, like racisim, sexism and ageism.
Please understand that very serious, long term consequences can flow from your regular, every day fender bender. And please adjust your level of attentiveness to the road accordingly.
Missed last weeksa国际传媒檚 column?
Hergott: Pot bellied issue of photo radar
Like us on Facebook and follow us on .
