Wednesday, December 20th, 2017Today’s guest post comes from B.C. injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken The legal principle of “agony of collision” sometimes also called “agony of the moment” gives wide latitude to a Plaintiff who is confronted with a sudden and unexpected hazard on the roadway due to someone else’s negligence. This principle was in action in reasons for judgement published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry. In today’s case (Biggar v. Enns) the Plaintiff was operating a motorcycle and was riding in a staggered fashion behind the Defendant who was also operating a motorcycle. The Defendant rounded a curve and was out of sight of the plaintiff. During this time the Defendant took his eyes off the road and drifted into the oncoming lane of traffic. He crossed back over the centre line and re-entered his intended lane of travel roughly perpendicular to the proper direction of travel. At this moment the plaintiff rounded the corner, saw the Defendant in his lane and braked hard losing control of his bike and crashing. The Defendant argued the Plaintiff was partly at fault as a more prudent motorist could have avoided the hazard he posed. The Court disagreed and in doing so relied on the agony of collision principle finding the Defendant fully at fault. Madam Justice Sharma provided the following reasons:  In my view, the phrase “agony of the moment” aptly describes the plaintiff’s situation. The plaintiff’s first reaction was to avoid colliding with the defendant, or an oncoming vehicle. Therefore, it was a reasonable course of action for him to brake hard which caused his bike to fall and slide. The defendant agreed that in order to avoid hitting him, the plaintiff had to brake hard, and that made the plaintiff’s bike fall.  In my view the evidence is clear that the plaintiff was riding in a prudent and careful manner. There is no evidence that his speed was inappropriate for the conditions of the road or any other circumstance.  As noted earlier, I do not accept the defendant’s argument that once he lost sight of the defendant in front of him, the plaintiff should have slowed down more than he did. Also, I have already concluded the plaintiff was driving at an appropriate rate of speed, and that he had already slowed down.  Drivers are entitled to assume that other people will be driving in a prudent and safe manner. In Bern v. Jung, 2010 BCSC 730 the plaintiff lost control of a bicycle because of a sudden and unexpected presence of the defendant’s vehicle travelling in the wrong direction. The Court noted, at paras. 13-14, that the plaintiff was forced to act quickly and apply his brakes quickly and that he should not be found contributorily negligent for doing so.  In this case the plaintiff was entitled to assume that his friend had negotiated the curve safely; coming upon the defendant situated in front of him and perpendicular to his line of traffic was unexpected and sudden. The plaintiff cannot be blamed for doing what I find to be the only reasonable thing he could do to avoid a more serious accident: applying his brakes hard. I conclude it was the defendant’s string of actions (looking to the canyon, and trying to get back in position instead of waiting on the shoulder) that caused the accident.  For all those reasons, I find the defendant 100% liable for the accident.
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017Bennett Jones LLP In Blade Runner 2049, Nexus-9 replicant Luv asks the LAPD’s Lieutenant Joshi, “In the face of the fabulous new your only thought is to kill it? For fear of great change? You can’t hold the tide with a broom.” While autonomous vehicles will not necessarily present the same challenges to society as an army of remorseless, bioengineered, self-replicating androids, the tide of fully autonomous vehicles is coming. The U.S. Secretary of Transport stated at the 2015 Frankfurt Auto show that he expects driverless cars to be in use all over the world within the next 10 years. Audi, BMW, Toyota, and Ford have all promised fully self-driving cars between 2020–2022. Driverless cars are now an inevitable “fabulous new” that will bring about great change. This will impact every business connected to the automotive industry, including insurance companies. The Scope of Change The change that fully self-driving autonomous vehicles will bring and the way our relationship with the car will change cannot be understated. Eventually there will be a complete passing of the baton from driver to car when vehicles are in control of their key functions. Liability for collisions will shift from the driver to the manufacturer. The CEO of Volvo has publicly said the company will accept full liability when one of its cars is in autonomous mode. On December 1, 2017, the California Department of Motor Vehicles dropped language from its proposed robot car regulations that would have let self-driving car automakers escape liability for crashes and shift the burden to consumers. Many commentators have focused on the perceived negative sea-change that autonomous vehicles may wreak on the motor vehicle insurance markets. Fully autonomous vehicles are predicted to lead to a substantial reduction in motor vehicle accident claims, meaning lower premiums and tighter margins, and possibly competition from vehicle manufacturers themselves—as the focus of motor vehicle insurance shifts from individual driver characteristics to the make, model and software of the vehicle. But with great change often comes great opportunity. Insurers who are quick to understand and adapt to the fabulous new may gain first-mover advantage in three key areas: Cybersecurity Insurance will be required for vehicle owners to protect against theft, unauthorized entry, ransomware, hijacking of vehicle controls, identity theft and privacy breaches. Product Liability for Sensors and Software Algorithms Manufacturers will need coverage for failures in communications systems, software (bugs, memory overflow, product defect, malicious coding by rogue employees) and hardware (sensory circuit failure, mechanical failure, camera vision loss, radar failure). Public Infrastructure When smart roads are built as public works, governments will need insurance for cloud server systems that manage traffic and roadways, as well as the failure of external sensors and signals. It should also be kept in mind that while predicted to be safer, miscalculation by AI could lead to different accidents—things humans simply would not do. Collisions, when they occur, could also be more severe if fully autonomous vehicles travel at higher speeds than are currently allowed. In the shorter term, there could even be an increase in collisions and claims because humans will not understand the limitations of semi-autonomous (as opposed to fully autonomous) vehicles. Self-driving cars will also interact for some time with human-driven ones and human error. Moreover, while the focus of insurance may move from the characteristics of the individual to the vehicle, the essential insurable risks will remain the same, including accident, mechanical failure, vandalism, and theft. The tide of self-driving cars is not going to stop. But insurers who move with it can make the most of the opportunities in the face of the fabulous new. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Source: Mondaq
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017It’s night and I’m driving into the gray cotton of fog caused by a lingering temperature inversion. Vision is limited, the roads are wet, it’s just a few degrees above freezing and some of the traffic to my left is driving like it’s a sunny afternoon in August. As they whoosh by me nose to tail at speeds exceeding the posted limit I marvel at what I imagine is their ability to see so much better than I can. I also admire their ability to anticipate and use quick reflexes to get themselves out of trouble if something unexpected happens ahead. As of today, ICBC will probably have received reports of more than a quarter of a million collisions so far in 2017. About 85% of the information that we need to drive comes through our eyes. Darkness and fog limit our ability to see which means we may suffer from a lack of data to make decisions from. Speed limits the time available to process data. The faster you drive, the less time you have to consider and react to what that limited data is telling you. Following too closely in conditions that reduce your ability to brake and steer on top of all of this is simply asking for trouble. When it is foggy enough to limit our ability to see properly when driving, the first question that we need to ask ourselves is “Do I really need to make this trip?” If the answer is no, then putting the journey off to another time could be a really wise choice. If we have to travel, the next consideration might involve a decision on which route to take. Using the freeway might not be your best choice as city streets will have slower, safer travel speeds. Turn on ALL your vehicle’s lights. Do it by setting your headlight switch in the on position, not the auto position. I’ve learned by observation that on a foggy day the auto position of my vehicle’s headlight switch will result in a lack of taillights. There is enough diffuse light to trick the system into thinking it is bright enough to use just the daytime running lights and it shuts off the taillights, leaving me unprotected from behind. If your vehicle is equipped with front or rear fog lights, now is the time to use them. You must choose an appropriate travel speed, keeping in mind that you have to be able to come to a full stop in slightly less distance than you can actually see. Erring on the side of caution by traveling more slowly is a wise choice. Keep your eyes moving! We have an unconscious tendency to travel toward the things that we stare at. Maintaining proper lane position is critical. The prevailing wisdom suggests that you use the solid white line or pavement edge to your right rather than the center line of the roadway. Finally, if visibility becomes so poor that you can no longer see well enough to drive you’ve become trapped in a situation where your darned if you do and darned if you don’t. Continuing on may result in a crash, but slowing down too much may mean being hit from behind. Should you decide to stop, get as far off of the road as possible. If you decide to remain in your vehicle, keep your seatbelts fastened to minimize injury if you are hit by another vehicle.
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017•Six Subaru models earn high marks from IIHS, including four Top Safety Pick+ winners when equipped with optional EyeSight and specific headlights •2018 Impreza earns Top Safety Pick+ rating, the only small car to achieve top ratings in all IIHS evaluations •2018 Legacy earns yet another Top Safety Pick rating, making it the longest running award winner in its class for 13 years in a row (2006-2018) •Subaru Forester extends its record as the longest running Top Safety Pick winner in the small SUV class with its 12th consecutive win (2007-2018) MISSISSAUGA, ON, Dec. 11, 2017 /CNW/ – Subaru Canada, Inc. (SCI) is proud to announce that six of its vehicles earned high marks for safety from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) for 2018, including four Top Safety Pick+ (TSP+) designations. The 2018 Impreza, Legacy, Outback and WRX models each earned the TSP+ award from the IIHS when equipped with EyeSight driver assist technology and LED steering-responsive headlights. Additionally, 2018 Crosstrek and Forester received the Top Safety Pick (TSP) award when equipped with EyeSight and LED steering-responsive headlights. For its 2018 rankings, IIHS once again increased the standards for earning a Top Safety Pick+ (TSP+) to include a newly introduced passenger-side small overlap front crash test. This new test, which duplicates the same test on the driver’s side, sends the vehicle into a barrier at 64 km/h (40 mph) with just 25 per cent of the vehicle’s front end overlapping the barrier. It mimics what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or with an obstacle such as a tree or utility pole. “Drivers expect that their passengers, who are often family, will be protected just as well as they are,” says IIHS President Adrian Lund. “Manufacturers have been taking this issue seriously since we first shed light on it, and we’re confident that good small overlap protection will become the norm on the passenger side, just as it has on the driver side.” 2018 Crosstrek, Impreza, Legacy, Outback and WRX were top performers in the test, according to IIHS, and received “good” ratings. To earn the TSP designation, a vehicle must earn “good” ratings in the Institute’s small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side impact, rear crash protection and rollover tests, as well as an “advanced” or “superior” rating for front crash prevention with standard or optional autobrake. It must also earn a “good” or “acceptable” rating for its headlights. In order to carry the TSP+ rating, headlights must now receive a “good” rating, as well as a “good” or “acceptable” rating in the passenger-side small overlap front crash test. With these 2018 awards, Subaru continues to build on its impressive safety record. The Subaru Legacy continues its streak as the longest running midsize sedan with top safety ratings for an astounding 13th year in a row, while the Forester extends its title as the longest running winner in the small SUV category with a record 12th win. “Safety is, and always will be, one of Subaru’s core values,” said Yasushi Enami, chairman, president and CEO of Subaru Canada, Inc. “The new Subaru Global Platform is just one of the core technologies that demonstrates our commitment to meeting the safety standards of the future.” About Subaru Canada, Inc. Subaru Canada, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan. Headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario, the company markets and distributes Subaru vehicles, parts and accessories through a network of 93 authorized dealers across Canada. For more information, please visit www.subaru.ca or www.pr.subaru.ca or follow @SubaruCanada on Twitter.
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017By JASON TCHIR I got a speeding ticket for going 20 km/h above the limit but it doesn’t say how many demerit points I lose. Does that mean I won’t lose any? I really don’t understand how demerits work and I’m worried that my insurance will go up. – Mike, Toronto At a loss trying to figure out how demerits work? You’ve got plenty of company. “Every single ticket issued, the first word out of people’s mouths is, ‘How many points do I lose?’ ” said Constable Clint Stibbe of Toronto Police Traffic Services. “But you don’t lose points, you gain them.” Demerits are strikes against your driving record. In Ontario, you start out with zero and get demerits added by the province when you get convicted of many Ontario Highway Traffic Act offences. Penalties range from two demerits (for offences such as making an illegal turn) to seven demerits (for not stopping when police try to pull you over or for failing to remain at an accident). Looking at speeding specifically: going 30-49 km/h over the limit is four demerits; 16-29 km/h over is three and there are no demerits if you’re 15 km/h or less over the limit. And, with a few exceptions, you’ll still get demerits from tickets you got in other provinces. Demerits not on the ticket When you’re pulled over, the officer doesn’t decide how many demerit points you’ll get, he just gives you a ticket for breaking a particular section. The ticket itself doesn’t show the demerits. “The only time you would see any reference to demerits would be if we issue a warning for the offence,” Stibbe said. “If you get a warning, it will indicate what the fine and the demerits would have been. It’s like a safety brochure.” If you do get a ticket and you pay it, or you fight it and the court finds you guilty, you’ll automatically get the demerit points associated with it. There are a couple of exceptions. You won’t get demerit points if you got the ticket on a bicycle. And while running a red light normally comes with three demerits, there are no demerits if it’s a ticket from a red light camera. That’s because they get sent to the owner of the vehicle, who may not have been the one driving. Gain demerits, lose your licence? The specifics vary by province, but generally, if you rack up enough demerit points, your driver’s licence will get suspended. If you have a full licence in Ontario, the ministry can decide to suspend your licence once you have nine demerits. But if you get to 15 or more, your licence is automatically suspended for 30 days. For new drivers with G1 or G2 restricted licences, six demerits could be enough to get a licence suspension; nine demerits is an automatic 60-day suspension. The demerits stay on your licence for two years. But the conviction stays on your driving record for three years, Stibbe said. Suspensions stay on your record for six years. Convictions matter for insurance It’s that conviction, rather than the demerits themselves, that your insurance company is looking at when deciding whether to raise your rates. “The more tickets and infractions you have on your driving record the larger the risk you become to insure and your rate will reflect that,” said John Bordignon, spokesman for State Farm Canada, in an e-mail. Companies can use any convictions on your record, even if they didn’t come with demerits. Generally, they break convictions into three categories: minor, major and serious. Minor includes following too closely and speeding. Major includes improper passing of a school bus or failing to report an accident. Serious includes speeding 50 km/h over the posted limit and impaired driving. So, something like speeding could affect your rates – even if it’s only for 10 km/h over the limit and didn’t come with demerits. “If you have two or three within a three-year window, even those could add up,” said Pete Karageorgos, director of consumer and industry relations with the Insurance Bureau of Canada. “The company will think, ‘Wait a minute, the trend here is that this is not a good driver.’ “ Rates soar, even without demerits We looked at online insurance calculators and compared rates for a 30-year-old, male, married driver with a 2015 Honda Civic and no previous accidents. With no tickets in the past three years, the lowest available rate was $1,878 a year. With two minor tickets, it rose to $2,017, with three to $4,987 and with four or more to $5,325. The government doesn’t notify your insurance company when you get a ticket, but the company can still find out. “Insurance companies on a semi-regular basis will check people’s driving records – if you’ve been with the same company, they may not look for two or three years,” Karageorgos said. “But if you’re shopping around for a new policy, that new insurance company will actively look at your driving record.” And if you apply for a new policy without telling them about your ample collection of speeding tickets, your policy could be cancelled.
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017Source: IBC Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) published on December 5, 2017 its annual Top 10 Most Frequently Stolen Vehicles list. High-end luxury SUVs are the most commonly stolen vehicles in Ontario. This year’s 10 most frequently stolen vehicles in IBC’s Ontario region are: 1.2016 Toyota 4Runner 4-door 4WD SUV 2.2015 Toyota 4Runner 4-door 4WD SUV 3.2006 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD and GMC Yukon 4WD SUVs 4.2003 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 2WD Pick-Up 5.2005 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD and GMC Yukon 4WD SUVs 6.2006 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD and GMC Sierra 2500 4WD SUVs 7.2003 Hummer H2 4-door 4WD SUV 8.2002 Chevrolet Tahoe 4-door 4WD and GMC Yukon 4-door 4WD SUVs 9.2014 Toyota 4-Runner 4-door 4WD SUV 10.2005 Buick Rainier 4-door 2WD, Chevrolet Trailblazer 4-door 2WD and GMC Envoy SUVs Quoting Statistics Canada as the IBC source, Donaldson noted that Guelph, Ontario reported the largest auto theft activity increase in Canada at 49%. Windsor reported a 14% increase and St. Catharines experienced a 5% increase. Of Ontario’s two largest cities, Toronto reported a 4% increase while Ottawa experienced a 1% decline. Theft was also down 17% in Sudbury, 12% in Barrie and London, 9% in Kingston, and 1% in Peterborough and Hamilton. In Ontario, the rate of recovery for stolen vehicles increased to 60%, up 2 per cent from last year.
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing fault for a collision involving a cyclist and a motorist. In this week’s case (McGavin v. Talbot) the Plaintiff had merged onto the roadway where a bike lane ended. Shortly thereafter the Defendant, proceeding in the same direction of travel, clipped the Plaintiff’s bike while a vehicle attempting to pass causing him to lose control and crash. The motorist denied fault. Mr. Justice Masuhara found fault rested fully with the motorist in these circumstances and provided the following reasons:  I find that Mr. McGavin had merged on the roadway at the end of the bike lane. Mr. McGavin estimates he was riding at about 20-25 kmph which I accept. I also find based on the testimony of Ms. Talbot, that Mr. McGavin was ahead of the Mr. Talbot’s pickup when the bike lane ended. In my view, Mr. McGavin had the dominant position on the roadway beyond the end of the bike lane, and Mr. Talbot passed Mr. McGavin when there was not a safe distance between his pickup and Mr. McGavin to do so. Mr. Talbot did not pass at a safe distance.  I find the passing occurred before the X in the lane and before the start of guard rails for the Colquitz Bridge (Exhibit 1, Tab 4) and that the rear of the pickup driven by Mr. Talbot struck or clipped the handle bar of the bicycle ridden by the plaintiff causing the plaintiff to fall at about the start of the guard rails by the Colquitz Bridge.  As a result, it is my determination that Mr. Talbot is entirely at fault for Mr. McGavin’s fall.  My finding here is made on the bases that: (a) A cyclist has the same rights and duties of a driver of a vehicle pursuant to s. 183(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, s. 318; (b) A driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle must cause its vehicle to pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance and must not cause or permit the vehicle to return to the right side of the highway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle pursuant to s. 157(1); and (c) A driver of a vehicle must drive with due care and attention and must have reasonable consideration for other drivers pursuant to s. 144.
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017The Superintendent may require that a driver complete an Enhanced Road Assessment (ERA) as part of the process of making a Driver Medical Fitness determination. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) administers the ERA on behalf of the Superintendent.There is no fee charged to the driver for the ERA. For more information on the ERA, see the Enhanced Road Assessment Information for Drivers(PDF). Some of the most common reasons for an ERA are: •A doctor reports a medical condition that may affect a person’s fitness or ability to drive safely •Results of a previous on-road assessment suggest a follow-up is necessary; and/or •A collision report, police report or other report indicates a driver may be unable or unsure how to handle a common driving situation The ERA is conducted in a Class 5 vehicle and is designed to assess driving skills and behaviours at the Class 5 or Class 7 level. It is not used to assess a driver’s ability to safely operate a commercial class vehicle. The ERA is designed as an assessment which provides RoadSafetyBC with comprehensive information, rather than a road test that is either passed or failed. RoadSafetyBC reviews the results of the ERA, along with all other relevant information in a driver’s file, in order to make a decision to maintain, re-issue, or cancel the driver’s licence. In some cases, additional information may be required in order to make a licensing decision. This may include further medical testing, or an additional ERA. All additional ERAs are at the discretion of RoadSafetyBC, based on all of the information related to a driver’s medical fitness to drive. Please note: As of March 5, 2018, any outstanding RoadSafetyBC requirement for a Class 5 or Class 7 ICBC road test re-examination may only be satisfied by taking an ERA. For more information on your outstanding requirement, please call RoadSafetyBC at 1-855-387-7747.
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017With insurance rates in B.C. under escalating pressure, in part from the rapidly increasing number of crashes occurring on our roads, the provincial government, ICBC and police are launching two pilots to explore how technology can help combat distracted driving in our province. Phone apps paired with telematics on B.C. roads The first pilot – a partnership between government and ICBC – will include up to 200 customers using phone apps paired with telematics. Telematic technology involves fitting a vehicle with a small device that communicates with an app installed on the driver’s cellphone. The app works to block the use of a handheld device when the in-vehicle technology senses that the vehicle is being driven. The combination of telematics with phone apps typically has allowed insurers to collect driving behaviour data, such as kilometres travelled and average speed. However for this pilot ICBC is interested in the user’s experience with telematics in their vehicle. Findings from the pilots will be used to inform future decisions around distracted driving prevention and enforcement, as well as changes to improve the fairness of how insurance rates are set. In the coming weeks ICBC will confirm two to three vendors whose technology will be used during the pilot, which is set to launch in January with results prepared in the spring of 2018. The technology to be used in the pilot was determined to be the most promising based on a review of submissions from a Request for Information ICBC issued in the spring. For the pilot, ICBC will recruit volunteers from its customer advisory panel. Customers are encouraged to join ICBC’s customer advisory panel through icbc.com for an opportunity to participate in this pilot and future e-surveys to share opinions about ICBC products, services and policies. ICBC is looking for participants ages 19 years and up, from all across B.C. Police test Bluetooth-enabled distracted driving scope Government and ICBC will also be working in partnership with police to conduct an additional pilot to test a new distracted driving enforcement technology beginning in the spring of 2018. A Bluetooth-enabled scope will be the latest tool police will have on-hand to capture distracted driving. Units will be tested by police in varying weather and traffic conditions for usability and effectiveness. The scope will capture an image that can be instantly shared with other officers in the immediate area. That officer will then have the ability to show the image to the distracted driver. These pilots are some of the many actions that government, ICBC and B.C. police are taking to reduce crashes caused by distracted driving. Quotes: David Eby, Minister responsible for ICBC and Attorney General “Distracted driving is a high-risk behavior that jeopardizes the safety of drivers and pedestrians alike. These pilots are the first step in a thoughtful examination of the role technology can play in preventing distracted driving. I look forward to the results to help us better understand their potential to influence driver behaviour and inform changes so insurance rates are set fairly.” Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General “Distracted driving is a serious high-risk behaviour, which is now responsible for more than 25 per cent of all car crash fatalities in our province. If new technology can help police and drivers alike put an end to distracted driving, then we’ll have helped to make roads safer in B.C.” Chief Constable Neil Dubord, Chair of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police Traffic Safety Committee Distracted driving is the second leading cause of car crash fatalities in B.C. The safety of our communities is the highest priority for police and it is for this reason that we are taking the initiative to explore these new technologies. We will continue to work with our partners to look for ideas to assist in changing behaviours involving distracted driving. Mark Blucher, ICBC’s president and CEO “While we’re eager to find ways to reduce distracted driving through this pilot with our panel, you don’t have to be part of the pilot to make a difference now. You can do that every day by simply taking a break from your phone. Apps are already available, including the Do Not Disturb While Driving feature, on iPhones and some Android devices. ICBC’s rates are under considerable pressure and one of those reasons is a significant increase in crashes, many of which are the result of distracted driving.”
Wednesday, December 20th, 2017Adding to this site’s archived damage assessments for thoracic outlet syndrome, reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for such an injury. In today’s case (Sharma v. MacDonald) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 collision that the Defendant accepted fault for. The Plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries the most serious of which was thoracic outlet syndrome. The symptoms lingered to trial and were expected to cause some ongoing limitations. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $100,000 Madam Justice Maisonville provided the following reasons:  …I find that the defendants are responsible for the plaintiff’s neck, back, and arm issues. In my view, the plaintiff has established on a balance of probabilities that she suffers from thoracic outlet syndrome, as concluded by Dr. Hawkeswood, and that this injury was caused by the defendants’ negligence.  With respect to anxiety, I accept that the plaintiff suffers from anxiety in relation to driving…  Regarding non-pecuniary damages, I find that the plaintiff enjoyed a full life before the Accident and had no issues with respect to her neck and back. Nor did she have a tingling feeling in her arm or numbness of her right arm.  I find that, as she testified, the plaintiff did not have to rest after having performed her regular activities. I also find that she did not experience headaches or low mood symptoms prior to the Accident.  I do find, however, that the plaintiff has been steadily improving. I note that she enjoys playing basketball. I note that she now works without significant limitations. I note that she has gone back to a number of her pre-Accident activities. She is not as socially isolated now that she has returned home from Edmonton.  I accept that the plaintiff still suffers from numbness and tingling feelings in her right arm, and from some neck and back pain. However, the pain she has now is not like the pain immediately following the Accident. The plaintiff is able to work to the extent she testified to. While I appreciate that she must rest afterward, she is not disabled from working.  In all of the circumstances, I award the plaintiff $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages.