- Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein
- Bill Dick, Q.C.
- Brandon Souza
- Brian Brooke
- Irina Kordic
- J. Scott Stanley
- Jeffrey J. Nieuwenburg
- Joe Battista, Q.C.
- Joe Murphy, Q.C.
- John M. Cameron
- Keri Grenier
- Kevin Gourlay
- Kevin Hyde
- Leyna R. Roenspies
- Matthew W. Van Nostrand
- Mike Murphy
- Paul J. Bosco
- Stephen Gibson
- Tara Chandler
- Veronica Medved
- Back and Spinal Cord Injuries
- Car Accidents
- Motor Vehicle Accidents - ICBC Injury Claims
- Brain and Head Injuries
- Chronic Pain
- Injury Claims
- Burn Injuries
- Psychological Injuries
- Denied Claims
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Orthopaedic Injuries
- General Negligence
- Slip and Fall Injuries
- Insurance Disputes
- Bike Accidents
- Medical Malpractice
Our Success at Trial Benefits All Our Clients*
We are experienced trial lawyers with a proven track record of success.
A selection of personal injury and insurance cases* where our lawyers have successfully helped clients are listed below.
*Disclaimer: The outcome of every legal proceeding will vary according to the facts and unique circumstances in each individual case. References to successful case results where the lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP have acted for clients are not necessarily a guarantee or indicative of future results.
Keri Grenier acted for a worker who suffered multiple injuries while working in the laundry department of the Kelowna General Hospital when he was lifted off the ground and crushed by a laundry machine. Despite his significant injuries, the worker was denied part of his WorkSafeBC claim on the basis that his injuries were initially found be unrelated to the accident. Keri requested a review of the decision denying his neck injury, among other things. The Review Division denied the review. Keri successfully appealed on behalf of her client to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) which confirmed that the worker’s neck injury arose out of the accident. WCAT also suggested that the Board should consider a permanent, partial disability pension assessment with medical treatment.
John M. Cameron and Paul Bosco acted for Mr. Niessen, who was the sole proprietor of a plumbing-and-heating company. Mr. Niessen sustained significant injuries (head, neck, and lower back) when his vehicle was struck by a vehicle that crossed the centre line of a highway and these injuries affected all areas of his life. The main issue at trial was the degree to which Mr. Niessen’s ability to earn income had suffered as a result of his injuries. ICBC took the position that there was a lack of documented evidence to support this loss. However, the court accepted Mr. Cameron and Mr. Bosco’s arguments that Mr. Niessen’s history of skill and ability in his industry, his business records, and the witness called on his behalf including former co-workers and customers, all were sufficient to prove that a significant loss had occurred. In the end, the Court awarded over $840,000 for this loss of earning potential. Overall, the court awarded Mr. Niessen just over $1.2 million, which was almost triple the amount the insurance company had argued Mr. Niessen deserved.
Joe Murphy, Q.C. and Brandon Souza acted for the executors and estate of the deceased, Maxine Wilton, who altered her Will by completing two codicils. The defendants, the deceased’s grandchildren, were no longer beneficiaries in the Will after the second codicil was made. The grandchildren challenged that codicil claiming suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the codicil, that the grandmother lacked the testamentary capacity, and that she was subject to undue influence. The grandmother suffered strokes both before and after the codicil which left the grandchildren out of her will. After a five day trial, the court found the codicil valid and that the grandmother knew exactly what she was doing.
Stephen Gibson, Scott Stanley, and Brandon Souza acted for the plaintiff who suffered a traumatic brain injury and a spinal cord injury that rendered her an incomplete quadriplegic. The plaintiff, an engineer, was driving across train tracks at a passive crossing when a train collided with the right side of her vehicle. The court found that Canadian National Railway Company was aware of insufficient sight lines and the dangerous nature of the specific railway crossing for many years prior to the accident and took no actions to ameliorate those risks. Despite the Plaintiff’s failure to stop at a stop sign at the railway crossing, Canadian National Railway Company was still found 60% at fault for the accident. The court awarded approximately $3,200,000 in damages.
Jeff Nieuwenburg acted for the plaintiff on an appeal regarding a finding of contributory negligence on her part and failure to mitigate her damages. The appeal was successful in part with the court finding there was no evidence that the plaintiff failed to follow a treatment, that would have decreased her damages and the failure to mitigate finding was set aside. In the result, this meant that the plaintiff was entitled to recoup the 75% reduction that had been applied to her damages award for failure to mitigate.
Veronic Medved and Tara Chandler acted for a Plaintiff who was only 23 years old at the time of the collision. After T-boning the Defendant (who was found 100% responsible for the collision), the Plaintiff developed a traumatic lesion on her spine and chronic pain condition which disabled her from gainful employment. The Court awarded damages in the amount of $1,885,000, including $185,000 for pain and suffering and $1,297,146 in future income loss. Although her working history was short, the Court accepted that as a single mom, the Plaintiff was very attached to the workforce and would have worked on a full-time basis to the age of 70 without voluntary withdrawal.
In QP v. Bolton, Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein and Paul Bosco acted for an RCMP officer who was significantly injured in the course of his duties. The court accepted their arguments that his life was significantly impacted as a result of his injuries, he missed out on earning overtime income, his opportunity for advancement in his career may be limited, and that his wife was entitled to compensation for the care she provided by way of an in trust claim. The court also accepted their argument that he and his employer should be compensated for the time he missed from work, despite having been paid by his employer for this time, finding that it would be unfair to let the wrongdoer benefit from the generosity of the employer.
Scott Stanley and Paul Bosco represented a young woman who was the victim of horrible burns following an explosion at a backyard fire pit. The tenant poured a bucket of used motor oil on the fire, causing it to explode. The landlord, who happened to be the City of Burnaby, had been warned the tenant had fires in the past, which was contrary to their own bylaw prohibiting open fires, but did nothing about this. In the course of a month-long jury trial, the court accepted the arguments of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Bosco that (1) a duty of care was owed by the landlord to the victim, a visitor to the premises, (2) it was impossible for the victim to be found at all at fault for the incident and her injuries, and (3) only basic factual questions should be put to the jury for consideration. The jury ultimately awarded the victim a total of $4.56 million.
Jeffrey Nieuwenburg acted for the plaintiff on an application by the plaintiff for production of documents from the defendant which include liability documents, privileged documents from its list of documents, and an affidavit of documents. The plaintiff also sought costs. There was a 15-day jury trial in this matter scheduled for February 2018.
Scott Stanley acted for the plaintiff in this case involved physical and psychological injuries sustained by a 49 year-old pedestrian on a sidewalk when a driver lost control while attempting to park, drove onto the sidewalk, and pinned the pedestrian against a wall. The pedestrian required three surgeries and had significant limitations with work as a teaching assistant and day-to-day living. The court awarded $1,064,682.07.
Kevin Gourlay and Paul Bosco acted for a 46-year-old tradesman who sustained injuries to his head, neck and back in a head-on collision. The plaintiff also claimed compensation for psychological injuries. He was initially denied benefits by ICBC who said that it was a WCB issue. Having overcome that defence, the plaintiff proceeded to trial and recovered damages of $724,000, including $150,000 for pain and suffering and $400,000 for lost earning capacity.
At issue was whether a car dealership should be found liable for injuries caused by a truck stolen from their car lot. The court accepted that not only was the thief at fault, but the dealership was as well. The evidence established that an employee left the truck unattended with the keys in the ignition, engine running, and doors unlocked for a period of about 40 minutes. Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein and Paul Bosco successfully argued their client was not at all contributorily negligent for having removed his seat belt prior to the collision in anticipation of pursuing the thief on foot.
AT was a man who worked in the funeral services industry and who suffered serious back pain and spasms after a motor vehicle accident. Unfortunately this chronic pain eventually led to the loss of his career. John M. Cameron of Murphy Battista assisted Mr. David Kolb of Kolb Law Corporation and together they represented AT in a trial in BC Supreme Court. AT achieved an award for compensation of $586,000 which was four times more than ICBC’s best pre-trial offer. AT was awarded $110,000.00 for pain and suffering, $108,000 for diminished earning capacity up to trial, $320,000 for loss of future earnings, and $45,000 for the costs of future medical care.
Scott Stanley was co-counsel in defending a plaintiff against an appeal of a successful judgment of $515,057 which was awarded to the plaintiff for soft tissue injuries and chronic pain. The Defendants challenged the awards for past and future loss of earning capacity arguing these could not be justified on the facts and were not adequately explained in the reasons for judgment by the trial judge. The BC Court of appeal dismissed the appeal and let the judgment stand.
Brian Brooke and Jeffrey Nieuwenburg represented a plaintiff, who was 19 at the time, who was injured while riding as a passenger in a friend’s vehicle when the vehicle left the roadway and rolled. She sustained compression fractures to her thoracic vertebrae and a closed head injury. As a result of these injuries, the plaintiff developed a chronic pain condition and was unable to pursue her dreams of becoming a registered nurse. At trial, the defendant was found wholly responsible for the accident. The plaintiff was awarded damages of approximately $1.4 million.
Joe Battista, Q.C. and Paul Bosco represented a pedestrian plaintiff who sustained catastrophic injuries, including a brain injury, after being struck by a drunk driver. The driver had recently left a pub, and made several brief stops, including at his home, before colliding with the plaintiff. The law up to this point was that if a patron makes it to their home, by whatever means, the establishment would no longer be liable for injuries caused by the patron, full stop. The court rejected this proposition, and found the pub partially liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. This decision effectively became the new law in BC on commercial host liability, expanding the responsibility owed by establishments, and creating a more favourable legal landscape for claimants who have been injured by intoxicated patrons.
Kevin Hyde was co-counsel for a plaintiff property developer who successfully sued on an indemnity agreement for damages and costs amounting to $125,255.77 that arose out of a failed real estate transaction.
Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein and Paul Bosco represented a police officer seriously injured by a truck stolen from the Dueck car dealership lot in Vancouver. Dueck was sued in negligence for having left the truck unattended, with the engine running, doors unlocked, and keys in the ignition. The court dismissed Dueck’s summary trial application in which Dueck argued they should not be found liable for injuries caused by the car thief.
Scott Stanley represented the Plaintiff in this proceeding involved motor vehicle accidents that occurred on March 9, 2010 and December 7, 2013. Liability was admitted for both accidents.
The Plaintiff alleged that she sustained a neck injury which resulted in headaches and dizziness. While the Plaintiff was able to continue with her work for 3 years, she struggled to do so, and eventually stopped working. The Defendants position was that the Plaintiff sustained only minor injuries and was capable of working claiming that her problems were either exaggerated or not related to the accidents.
The Plaintiff’s case went to trial on April 25, 2016 and was heard by a Judge and Jury. The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $373,600 in damages, essentially accepting every claim that was advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Bill Dick and Keri Grenier acted for a plaintiff who was 17 years old when she was struck in a crosswalk by a pickup truck driven by the defendant. The plaintiff’s principal issues following the injury included ongoing dizziness, headaches, anxiety and depression. At issue was whether the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, and whether her ongoing complaints were related to the accident or to other psychosocial stressors in her life as alleged by ICBC. After a two week trial the Court awarded damages totalling $347,581. The judgment included damages for loss of future earning capacity of $175,000.
John Cameron and Brandon Souza acted for A.B., a 37-year-old professional resume writer who was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident. The accident left her with significant ongoing pain in her neck along with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. Her symptoms limited her ability to work and grow her business as she had prior to the accident. After a 3-week trial, the Court awarded damages totaling $352,000, plus costs. The judgment included damages for the plaintiff’s future lost earning capacity of $170,000. Prior to trial ICBC’s best offer was only half of the compensation which A.B eventually received.
Joe Murphy, Q.C., Kevin Gourlay, and Mike Murphy acted for the plaintiff who was 16 when he was hit by a young woman who was not paying attention while driving on Halloween night in 2008. He suffered a significant traumatic brain injury. Before the accident, he had been an exceptionally gifted young man. Although he remained intelligent and was attending university, he was plagued by fatigue and cognitive difficulties as a result of the accident that would significantly impact his ability to work as an engineer. The Court assessed damages at $3,297,000, including $3M for loss of future earning capacity.
Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein and Paul Bosco represented an 83 year-old plaintiff who sustained life-threatening injuries, including a brain injury and various fractures, when he was struck by a vehicle while standing at a bus stop. ICBC denied liability but court found that the driver’s testimony was “littered with enormous credibility issues.” The driver, who had fled the accident scene, was found fully at fault. The plaintiff was awarded over $800,000 at trial, including $315,000 for pain and suffering, over $400,000 for future care, and $55,000 in-trust for the care provided by his wife during his recovery. Due to the plaintiff’s age and injuries, the case was brought to trial quickly, with the trial judgment being made less than 2 years after the accident.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant municipality was negligent in its winter maintenance of the road where the accident that injured the plaintiff had occurred. The plaintiff claimed her injuries disabled her from working and most activities of daily living. While the Jury found the parties shared liability it awarded the plaintiff damages of $3,576,600. The Jury also found the plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages. The plaintiff later appealed and was partly successful in that the BC Court of Appeal set aside the Jury finding that she had failed to mitigate her damages (see: Rhodes v. Surrey (City), 2016 BCSC 1880).
Brian Brooke, J. Scott Stanley, and Jeffrey Nieuwenburg were co-counsel for the plaintiff who was awarded $790,000 in damages as compensation for suffering a significant brain injury . The injury was the result of a shove in retaliation for the Plaintiff teasing the Defendant in the aftermath of a bachelor party. The BC court reviewed the law regarding liability in connection with stag parties and in the result awarded the firm’s client $790,000 in damages.
This case involved two young girls, who were 15 and 11 at the time of the accident. Both sustained spinal fractures and one was rendered a paraplegic. Both girls were passengers in their mother’s vehicle which was struck by another vehicle that crossed into their lane during a snow storm. The driver that crossed into their lane was found 100% at fault for the accident.
Kevin Gourlay was counsel for a 44-year-old general contractor who was injured in two rear-end motor vehicle accidents. The accidents left him with significant ongoing pain in his neck and back that limited his ability to work as he had prior to the accidents. After a 5-day trial, the Court awarded damages totalling $468,365, plus costs. The judgment included damages for the plaintiff’s future lost earning capacity of $285,845.
This case involved mild and moderate brain injuries sustained by two passengers when the driver of their vehicle lost control on the highway and crashed into a ditch. The court awarded $943,889.36 and $1,525,404.77, respectively.
- This was an appeal from a finding that a defendant driver was not insured under the insurance policy of a leasing vehicle. The Defendant driver only had a $1 million policy limit with ICBC but the Plaintiff’s damages were $1.6 million. The Plaintiff sought to obtain the additional $600,000 from the insurance policy of the leasing company. The Plaintiff was not successful at trial but succeeded on the appeal.
Kevin Gourlay acted for a massage therapist who sustained soft tissue injuries to her back in left-turn accident. The defendant argued that our client was wholly or partially at fault for the accident. Chief Justice Hinkson found the defendant to be entirely at fault for causing the accident and awarded damages totalling $373,424. This included $190,000 for lost earning capacity as the plaintiff’s injuries would likely affect her future career as a medical doctor.
Mr. Cameron represented SG at trial in BC Supreme Court and she successfully achieved an award for compensation more than three times the insurer’s best pre-trial offer. She was awarded $120,000.00 for pain and suffering, $175,000.00 for diminished earning capacity and a past loss of earnings of $40,000.00. She was also awarded $10,000.00 for future cost of future medical care.
Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay acted for the plaintiff, an emergency room doctor who sustained a concussion when he was rear-ended by a bus. Sadly, he was among the unlucky and statistically small minority of individuals who suffer long-term disabling symptoms as a result of a concussion. That concussion prevented him from being able to return to the practice of medicine.
Result: After a 29-day trial, he received judgment of just under $6,000,000 for damages, primarily resulting from his lost earning capacity as a doctor.
This was a related case to the case involving police officer EJ, noted above. In addition to obtaining compensation at trial for EJ’s injuries. EJ was also awarded compensation for approximately $10,000 of “sick bank” credits he had used while off work recovering from his injuries. ICBC appealed the decision regarding the sick bank credits but the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that ICBC was required to reimburse EJ for the loss of the credits.
In this appeal, Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay acted for two homeowners that were denied coverage by their insurance company, Wawanesa, after their house was destroyed by a furnace explosion. Wawanesa took the position that they were not entitled to coverage because the home had been “vacant” for more than 30 days and because they had not notified Wawanesa of a “material change” in circumstances. The homeowners lost at trial with the trial judge upholding Wawanesa’s denial of coverage. Scott and Kevin took the file over after trial and were successful in having the Court of Appeal reverse the trial judge’s finding on the basis of a 1932 Supreme Court of Canada decision that had not been given to the trial judge.
Kevin Gourlay acted for a young woman and mother of three who was injured in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of trial, she continued to suffer from mid-back pain as a result of the accident. The Court awarded damages of $91,700, including $60,000 for pain and suffering.
Kyla Taggart was 10 years old when she was struck by the defendant’s vehicle as she attempted to cross the road outside her elementary school. Kyla was in or near an unmarked crosswalk. The defendant took the position that the accident was not her fault and that Kyla’s mother was partially to blame for allowing Kyla to walk home. The Court agreed that the accident was 100% the fault of the defendant driver after accepting evidence that cars in the curb lane had stopped to allow Kyla to cross the road.
YW an elderly woman, fell and broke her hip when a bus driver accelerated into traffic without waiting for her to be safely seated. The transit company refused to accept responsibility and offered her $1.00 to settle her case prior to trial. Mr. Cameron took the matter to trial in the BC Supreme Court and YW was eventually awarded over $100,000 in damages.
KPW was a construction worker who injured his back in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to trial ICBC was prepared to offer him only $42,000 for his injuries and the impact on his employment. Mr. Cameron took the matter to the BC Supreme Court and KPW was eventually awarded over $120,000 in damages for his injuries and lost earnings.
Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein successfully opposed an attempt by ICBC to try and accept a settlement offer that had been, according to the court, “clearly and unequivocally revoked.”
Mr. Cameron was co-counsel in Albert v. Politano, Vancouver Registry No. M104190where the BC Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by ICBC and upheld in its entirety a jury award of just over $1 million in damages for a talented boxer whose career was cut short after injuries sustained in a car accident.
This case involved an emergency room doctor that was injured in a rear-end accident which resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury that prevented him from being able to practice medicine. The trial was scheduled to be heard over 35 days. At issue on this application was whether the defendants were entitled to have the trial heard by a jury rather than a judge sitting alone. We were successful in arguing that the matter was better decided by a judge sitting alone and the court ordered that the defendant’s jury notice be struck. While jury trials can be the best method of determining the parties’ respective rights, a 35-day trial on a non-criminal matter would be very rare and difficult to manage.
On a dark and foggy morning in February, 2007, the plaintiff was hit on Steveston Highway. Because of his serious injuries, our client had no recollection of the accident. The only witnesses were the defendant and his passenger but the passenger sadly passed away shortly after the accident (and unrelated to the accident). The question was whether the defendant driver was partially at fault for hitting the plaintiff who was admittedly dressed in dark clothing and on the highway when the accident occurred. The Court found that the defendant was 50% responsible for the accident. We were able to demonstrate that the defendant was driving too fast for the foggy conditions and that he was driving far too close to the curb in the over-sized curb lane; the side of his vehicle was almost in the gutter and he was driving in an area of the highway where one would routinely see cyclists.
Mr. Cameron represented EJ, a Vancouver police officer, who sustained injuries to his back and neck after his patrol car was rammed by a suspect in a stolen vehicle. EJ’s injuries compromised some of the overtime opportunities available to him in the police. Mr. Cameron represented EJ at trial in BC Supreme Court. Prior to the trial ICBC offered EJ $50,000. EJ was awarded over $120,000 at trial.
The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision. She was ultimately diagnosed with fibromyalgia. At trial she was represented by David Kolb and Mr. Cameron. The trial judge awarded significant damages for diminished earning capacity despite the Plaintiff having been diligent and not missing any work up to the time of trial.
ICBC appealed arguing that the Judge erred in awarding these damages because the judge relied on “common experience that a person with a stable but persistent energy-draining (missing something) ICBC argued that this was speculative and there was no evidence to suggest this is so. While the Plaintiff’s total damages were reduced slightly at the appeal to $475,000, the BC Court of Appeal was quick to dismiss the above argument finding it was simply a matter of common sense that chronic pain takes its toll. In doing so the Court provided the following reasons: Accepting that, to use the expression used at trial and at the hearing of this appeal, Ms. Morlan’s condition had “plateaued”, the fact remains that she would forever suffer from debilitating chronic pain along with headaches, symptoms that could be reduced, but not eliminated, by medication. In other words, throughout each and every day of her life, Ms. Morlan would have to cope with some level of discomfort. In my view, it was open to the trial judge to find—essentially as a matter of common sense—that constant and continuous pain takes its toll and that, over time, such pain will have a detrimental effect on a person’s ability to work, regardless of what accommodations an employer is prepared to make.The Plaintiff was represented at trial by Mr. David Kolb and Mr. Cameron. Her appeal was conducted by Mr. Kolb, Mr. Cameron and senior appeal counsel, Mr. Barry Fraser.
The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had cut him off and was responsible for the accident. The defendant also disputed the magnitude of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found that the defendant was responsible for the accident as the plaintiff was established in the lane before being hit by the defendant. The defendant simply failed to see what he ought to have seen: the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff’s evidence that he had suffered soft tissue injuries to his shoulder, neck and back was accepted. Damages of just under $50,000 were awarded, including $42,500 for pain and suffering.
Our client had suffered a stroke during open heart surgery caused by an air embolism entering her blood stream. The defendants disputed their liability for the injuries alleged as well as the severity of the consequences of the stroke. On this application, the defendants sought an order compelling our client to produce all content from her Facebook and Twitter profiles, as well as documents from her hard drive, iPhone, and digital camera. The court accepted our argument that it must balance disclosure with privacy rights and, in this case, there was no reason to invade the plaintiff’s privacy. The judge held: “I am unable to envisage any rational justification for breaching the privacy rights of an individual in civil proceedings simply because it is alleged that the individual’s general health, enjoyment of life and employability are directly at issue. Merely because a record may be made of the communication shouldn’t make it any different than a private telephone conversation. If not, surely applications in civil proceedings for recordings of private communications can’t be far behind.” This does not mean social media will not commonly have to be produced – one should always assume that everything they put on the internet can become public.
We acted for a young architect who was injured in two motor vehicle accidents. The other drivers in each accident admitted that they were at fault but challenged the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court accepted that the plaintiff had suffered serious long-term soft tissue injuries in the accidents and awarded damages of over $190,000. That included awards of $70,000 for pain and suffering and $90,000 for lost earning capacity.
This was an application regarding costs following a 29-day trial in which the plaintiff had been awarded nearly $6,000,000 in damages following a fall at a night club that had resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to her costs from the defendant insurer despite the insurer not being obligated to indemnify the plaintiff for her losses.
J. Scott Stanley and Irina Kordic acted for the Plaintiff in this proceeding involving an eye injury that occurred on September 12, 2007. The Plaintiff was helping the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, with some renovations on her home and was being assisted by her adult autistic son, Kyle Alexander Keyes. The Plaintiff was not wearing safety glasses; knew the son was autistic; and asked the son to assist him.
The son was holding a board for the Plaintiff and moved unexpectedly while the Plaintiff was about to strike the board with a hammer. This caused the Plaintiff’s hammer to strike another piece of metal which resulted in a metal splinter entering the Plaintiff’s eye and the eventual loss of this eye.
The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, was liable for permitting her autistic son to work with the Plaintiff and for failing to warn him about the dangers of working with her autistic son.
The case went to trial on May 30, 2011 and was heard by a Judge and Jury. The jury found that the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, was 20% liable for the injuries to Mr. Laurie.
KD was a university student who was injured when a vehicle she was riding in was struck by a stolen car. Her injuries affected her work as a lifeguard at the university pool and persisted after graduation as she entered the workforce. Prior to obtaining Mr. Cameron’s help she was advised that her case was a soft tissue injury, which ICBC valued at $6,500. Her case eventually went to trial and she was awarded over $100,000 in compensation.
CM was 46 years of age when involved in two motor vehicle accidents. She had worked steadily for 30 years before the accidents and had been very healthy. She was a high energy, motivated individual in all aspects of her life before the accidents. After the accidents she had to seek employment in a less demanding job and leaving a job she loved was a huge blow for her. After the accidents she was a different woman. Her energy was very low compared to what it was before. She developed fibromyalgia and was in constant pain, made endurable by taking large amounts of painkillers and nerve block drugs. ICBC offered to settle her case for $150,000 before trial. Mr. Cameron assisted Mr. David Kolb and took CM’s case to trial, where she was awarded $610,000 in damages.
Jury trial involving a 50-year-old mechanic from Lebanon who had immigrated to Vancouver in 1990. He was injured in two motor vehicle accidents which resulted in a herniated disc in his back. That injury prevented him from being able to work as he had previously. The defendants denied that the plaintiff had ongoing disabilities arising from the accidents. After a three-week trial in front of a jury, the jury awarded Mr. Kassem damages of $544,166, including $490,000 for lost earning capacity.
IV was injured in two accidents. The damage to the vehicles was modest, but she suffered injuries to her neck, back and hips which did not improve. ICBC told IV that in their view her accidents were too minor to deserve any compensation. IV’s injuries persisted in spite of medical treatment by her family doctor and other therapy, and over time her condition deteriorated. Even though IV had health problems before the accidents, it was clear to her that the two car accidents had made her overall health much worse. Mr. Cameron represented IV in a trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Court awarded IV more than $230,000 in damages plus compensation for the legal costs of fighting her case.
Joe Murphy, Q.C. represented the plaintiff who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury at a night club. The plaintiff had been about to start a legal career at the time of the accident. The court awarded $5,934,712 for the loss of a career that ended before it began.
The plaintiff was a young plumber injured in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant admitted fault for the accident but suggested the plaintiff’s injuries were not as disabling as alleged. The court agreed that the plaintiff had suffered significant injuries that would have a long-term impact on his ability to work as a plumber. Damages of over $400,000 were awarded, including $75,000 for pain and suffering, $250,000 for lost future earnings, and $76,000 for future care needs.
Years after her car was T-boned by a vehicle which had run a stop sign, SB still suffered from back and hip pain. Deeming ICBC’s offer of $10,000 in compensation as insufficient, SB took her case to Mr. Cameron, who brought the case to trial and helped her secure seven times that number in damages.
J. Scott Stanley and Irina Kordic acted for the plaintiff in this proceeding involving a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 8, 2003. The Plaintiff was struck from behind by another vehicle and alleged that he sustained a concussion and soft tissue injuries. The Plaintiff alleged that he experienced permanent cognitive and physical symptoms as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.
The Defendant denied that the Plaintiff sustained a concussion and further denied that he had an permanent cognitive or physical symptoms as a result of the accident.
The Plaintiff’s case went to trial on April 14, 2009 and was heard by a Judge and Jury.
The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $638,000 damages.
AF injured her back in a motor vehicle accident prior to becoming a police officer. Her injuries affected her training at the Police Academy and also limited some of the overtime opportunities available to her in the police. Mr. Cameron assisted another lawyer, Mr. David Kolb, in conducting a trial for A. in B.C. Supreme Court. Prior to the trial ICBC offered AF $15,000. AF was awarded over $85,000 at trial.
SR, a police officer, suffered injuries to his hips and lower back when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident while off-duty. His accident occurred while he was trying to cross a highway and was struck by another vehicle. A key issue in the case was who was at fault for the accident. ICBC took the position that SR was to blame for the accident. Mr. Cameron assisted SR at trial and the other driver was found to be 90% to blame for the accident. SR received over $125,000 in damages for his injuries.
JC was a fit young man whose knees were injured in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to consulting Mr. Cameron he had been offered $5,000 in compensation for his injuries. Mr. Cameron represented JC at trial and he was awarded over $45,000 in damages.
CL was a fit and active real estate agent who was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended. Prior to retaining John M. Cameron Law Corporation he was offered $10,000 in compensation by ICBC. The matter eventually went to trial and Mr. Cameron assisted CL in obtaining a damage award in excess of $75,000.
NG was a Starbucks barista who was injured when her vehicle was rear-ended. ICBC denied her any compensation on the basis of its low velocity impact program. Mr. Cameron took on her case and by the time of trial NG had become an RCMP officer. NG was awarded over $25,000 in compensation by the Court.
DH was a waitress/bartender who injured her knee in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to retaining John M. Cameron Law Corporation, she was offered a $500 settlement for what ICBC described as a minor soft tissue injury. Her case eventually went to trial and she was awarded over $65,000 in compensation. Mr. Cameron successfully proved that DH was also entitled to compensation for lost tips even though there were no formal records of the tips maintained at her work place.