http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1138/2016bcsc1138.pdf
In the above noted case, a plaintiff was awarded considerably less than she had claimed for a whiplash injury. The judge, in deciding how much this whiplash case was worth, stated that she would have to “exercise caution” in assessing this claim. This injury, like in many whiplash claims, was not objective. As I’ve stated in previous posts, an objective injury is an injury that is physically observable in some way. Examples of objective injuries are visible cuts and bruises or x-rays showing broken bones. Although you can dispute how the plaintiff got those injuries; you cannot dispute that they exist. Soft tissue injuries, which are common in whiplash events, on the other hand, are not usually observable and you can dispute that they actually exist.
In coming to their final decision, judges will typically put more weight on the credibility of the plaintiff in cases without objective injuries. In this particular case, the judge cited problems with the plaintiff’s credibility, as she had given inconsistent statements. Additionally, the judge also found an adverse inference against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had not called their family doctor to provide evidence.
This case illustrates many of the common pitfalls in whiplash claims.
