Both incidents caused the plaintiff's chronic pain and lasting limitations on her life and work
The Supreme Court of British Columbia awarded damages to a plaintiff for injuries sustained in two car accidents, ruling that the injuries from both incidents were indivisible as they collectively contributed to her chronic pain and lasting limitations on her life and work capacity.
In Roberts v Colbourne, 2024 BCSC 1720, the plaintiff was first involved in a rear-end collision in 2012 with Joel Kenneth Colbourne, followed by a second accident in 2017 with a vehicle driven by an RCMP constable. Both defendants admitted liability, but they disputed the extent of the injuries and the impact of the second accident.
The plaintiff, who had been an active individual, began experiencing chronic pain immediately after the first accident, which persisted through her move to Newfoundland and back to BC. Her condition was further aggravated by the second accident. The plaintiff reported severe pain, particularly in her neck, shoulders, and back, and was later diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). She testified that her symptoms limited her ability to engage in daily activities and impacted her quality of life.
Expert witnesses provided varied assessments of the plaintiff’s condition. A rheumatologist diagnosed the plaintiff with chronic pain and fibromyalgia due to injuries from both accidents, while a pain management specialist confirmed her chronic pain as a permanent condition, worsened by the second accident.
The Supreme Court addressed challenges to the plaintiff’s credibility, including her claims regarding a misdiagnosed neck fracture and delays in seeking treatment. The court found the plaintiff to be a generally credible witness, acknowledging some inconsistencies as likely due to the passage of time and the complex nature of her injuries. However, the court determined that the plaintiff’s and her husband’s belief in a misdiagnosed neck fracture was sincere but mistaken, relying instead on medical records that indicated no neck fracture.
In determining causation, the court concluded that injuries from both accidents were indivisible, as they collectively contributed to the plaintiff's chronic pain and limitations.
Ultimately, the court determined that the injuries from both accidents were indivisible, awarding the plaintiff compensation for non-pecuniary damages, lost earning capacity, future care costs, loss of housekeeping capacity, and special damages.
