604.264.5550
  • Estate Litigation
    • Overview
    • Estate Litigation in BC
    • Disputing a Will in BC
    • Disinherited – Wills Variation in BC
    • FREE Estate Evaluation
  • Family Law
    • Divorce Lawyers
    • Family Property Lawyers
    • Separation Agreements
    • Spousal & Child Support
    • Free Family Law Evaluation
  • Personal Injury Claims
    • Brain Injuries
    • Chronic Pain
    • Critical Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Personal Injury Law Overview
    • FREE Personal Injury Evaluation
  • About Us
    • Our Approach
    • Our Cases
    • thegoodfirm Lawyers
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Prior Testimony Kills Plaintiff’s Credibility at Trial

March 10, 2017Amanda JamesPersonal Injury LawNo comments

In Ross v. Andrews, 2017 BCSC 338, a plaintiff was ordered to pay double costs to ICBC after failing to win in his trial. He was injured in a car accident in Surrey in 2011. After a 15 day trial, a jury determined that the plaintiff had not received any injuries in the accident. Prior testimony in two unrelated court matters significantly affected his credibility before the jury.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff had testified in another court matter against a former customer with whom he had a physical altercation in 2013.  In his testimony, he claimed the assault had caused him  numbness in his right hand and had aggravated his neck and back symptoms. Since he had already been compensated in this court case, the jury was instructed not to award him any compensation for the numbness. Additionally, the plaintiff’s testimony at trial differed significantly from the assault trial, weakening his credibility.

Additionally, in provincial court family matter, the plaintiff had testified he had not worked because he had no driver’s license, without mentioning any accident related injuries. However, this conflicted with his evidence at trial in which he testified that he couldn’t work because of his car accident injuries.

Before trial, the defendant’s had offered to settle before trial for $75,000. After striking out at trial the ICBC defendants were entitled to their costs. The issue for the court was how the costs should be assessed.

If an offer to settle under Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-1 is made to another party and not accepted, the court can order double costs against that party. The ICBC defendants sought double costs against the plaintiff for failing to accept their $75,000 offer. In making an award for double costs, the court must consider whether the offer to settle was “reasonable”, based on the evidence known at the time and whether it “ought to have been accepted”.

The plaintiff argued that double costs would be a financial burden on him and that there was a significant financial imbalance because ICBC has significantly greater financial resources. The defendants argued that the offers were reasonable and that the main reason for the plaintiff’s failure at trial, namely his lack of credibility, was well known before the trial.

Mr. Justice Ball held that the $75,000 offer to settle should have been accepted by the plaintiff because he should have been alive to the risk that his testimony would be seen as unreliable and would be negatively treated by the jury. He awarded ICBC costs of the action and double costs of the action from 7 days after the $75,000 was received until the point of trial.

Tags: car accident, car accident injury, car accident lawyer, chronic pain, damages, personal injury, personal injury lawyer, vancouver personal injury lawyer

Related Articles

The 411 on Chronic Pain

February 2, 2017Amanda James

Car Accident | Will a new car help?

February 6, 2017Amanda James

Plaintiff’s Part 7 Benefits Reinstated after BC Supreme Court Finds Against ICBC in Interpreting Key Legislation

September 1, 2016ashley

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Helping your kids buy their first house? Read this first!
  • Helping your kids buy their first house? Read This Cautionary Tale From the Court of Appeal
  • New Foreign Buyers Tax Not Grounds for Avoiding Real Estate Contract: BC Supreme Court Rules
  • Failure to Take Reasonable Offer to Settle Results in Costs Against Plaintiff
  • BC Supreme Court Varies Will to Provide for Testator’s Spouse

Archives

  • April 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • August 2012

Search

Quick LInks

  • Estate Litigation
  • Family Law
  • Personal Injury Claims
  • Blog
  • Contact Us in Vancouver
  • Sitemap

Location

Richter Trial Lawyers, Barristers and Solicitors
Suite 310 – 5687 Yew Street
Vancouver, BC V6M 3Y2
604.264.5550
info@richtertriallaw.com

Our Other Website

Bcestatelawyer.com Vancouverestatelawyer.com Thegoodfirm.lawyer

Follow Us

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn