June 23rd, 2016
Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages of $90,000 for chronic injuries sustained in a vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Lu v. Huang) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2011 rear-end collision. The Defendant admitted fault. The Plaintiff’s injuries included chronic back and neck pain, headaches with psychological consequences. The prognosis was poor with symptoms expected to continue into the future and remain partially disabling.
In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 Mr. Justice Blok provided the following reasons:
 I found Ms. Lu to be a credible witness who did not exaggerate her symptoms. The symptoms she reported in her testimony were consistent with the findings and observations of her physicians as well as the observations of her co-workers and husband.
 The car accident was one of considerable force. The damage to the defendants’ vehicle, as shown in the photographs, was considerable. Although the evidence was that the defendants’ vehicle was subsequently written off, as I have observed before in other cases this in itself does not really convey much in the way of helpful information without also knowing the value of the car or the estimated value of the repairs. Having said that, however, I am satisfied that the crumpled front end and hood of the defendants’ car, as shown in the photographs, is strongly suggestive of an impact of considerable force.
 The plaintiff’s injuries were not really disputed. I find them to be as follows:
a) injuries to the cervical, thoracic and lumbar areas of her spine;
b) a disc protrusion in her lumbar spine; and
c) bruising to her upper chest.
 I find that those injuries were caused by the accident.
 I also find that as a result of those injuries the plaintiff has suffered:
a) debilitating neck and back pain, nausea and dizziness for the first two weeks after the accident;
b) ongoing constant cervical and lumbar pain from the time of the accident to the present;
c) occasional numbness in her fingers and legs;
d) constant or near-constant headaches; and
e) problems with mood, including depression, irritability and shortness of temper.
 Ms. Lu’s injuries left her unable to work for about two weeks, and after that limited her to part-time work (three days a week) for over a year. They have also left her unable to sit for longer than about 45 minutes. She is less productive at work and feels exhausted after a work day. Her injuries have also affected other areas of her life in that her sleep is less restful, she cannot do household work, her relationship with her husband has been adversely affected and she cannot participate in family or social activities that involve any amount of physical activity.
 I accept the evidence of Dr. Robinson that Ms. Lu will probably continue to suffer from headaches indefinitely. As for her cervical and lumbar spine pain, I note that it has already continued years beyond the time Dr. Murray felt Ms. Lu would start to see some improvement. Even the defence specialist, Dr. Lapp, said the Ms. Lu’s prognosis was guarded, though he felt she would experience “very slow further improvement”. Dr. Frobb was less positive; he felt her present condition likely “represents a status of maximal medical improvement”. From all of the medical evidence I conclude that Ms. Lu’s symptoms are likely to continue in the long term and there is only a small prospect that her symptoms will improve to any substantial degree.
 Finally, I accept the opinion of Dr. Murray that Ms. Lu’s lumbar disc protrusion puts her at risk for further episodes of back pain, and that she should avoid activities involving heavy lifting, carrying or forward bending…
 I assess non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $90,000.