Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court awarding a Plaintiff damages as a result of a signficicant motor vehicle accident which occurred in Burnaby, BC in 2005.
The Defendant lost control of a garbage truck which tipped over and landed on the Plaintiff’s Honda Civic. A photo of the collision is included at paragraph 2 of the reasons for judgement and this is worth glancing at to get a feel for the severity of this impact.
The Plaintiff was knocked unconsious as a result of the crash. His Glasgo Coma Scale was 9 by the time the ambulance crew arrived and this qucikly rebounded to 15 by the time the Plaintiff arrived at hospital.
There was no dispute that the Plaintiff suffered various injuries as a result of this crash, what was at issue was the ‘nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s current condiction and the degree to which improvement may occur in the future’.
After hearing various medical evidence the court found as follows:
 (The Plaintiff) has clearly suffered physical and psychiatric injury as a result of the August 19, 2005 collision. I accept that his injuries caused him headaches, back pain and neck pain and pain in his shoulder. Likely, he would have had some neck and shoulder problems from his previous condition without the August 2005 injury, however that injury clearly either initiated them anew or made them worse. The physical problems |(the Plaintiff) suffered because of the August 19, 2005 collision have, by the date of the trial almost three years later, largely resolved as documented in the medical records, however his psychiatric ones have not, and there is an issue that he may still be suffering symptoms of a mild traumatic brain injury in addition to his PTSD and major depressive disorder. (the Plaintiff) was clearly rendered unconscious by some degree of impact to his head as evidenced by the ambulance crew reports, Mr. Touffaha’s observations and the glass found embedded in his scalp. I find that (the Plaintiff) probably suffered a mild traumatic injury to his brain at the time of the collision.
 Whether or not (the Plaintiff) still is affected by his mild traumatic brain injury is not clear, particularly because his psychiatric condition can produce the same symptoms at this point. On the balance of probabilities, I accept the opinion of Dr. Teal, the neurologist, that (the Plaintiff) has not sustained persisting cognitive impairment as a result of traumatic brain injury, and will not have any long-term cognitive sequelae as a result of a neurological injury.
 I also find, on the balance of probabilities that while (the Plaintiff) was initially rendered essentially catatonic for the first six months following the collision, he has since that time made significant improvement, and I accept the opinion of Dr. Wiseman that with a course of cognitive behavioural therapy conducted by a specialist in that field, he will continue to make improvements. On the other hand, I accept that he will likely continue to have problems and symptoms from his PTSD and depression for the rest of his life. I find that it is highly unlikely that (the Plaintiff)will be able to return to his employment at Coastal Ford or any other competitive employment. The medical evidence is that to the date of trial he has been unfit for employment. He is now 67 years old, an age at which neither the body nor the brain is particularly resilient. His mental state in my opinion is and will remain too fragile for him to be competitively employed.
 The result of this collision and its consequent injuries to (the Plaintiff) is that he has lost a large measure of who he was. While human identity is partially associated with physical ability, it is much more related to a person’s mental state and abilities. (the Plaintiff) is quite simply not the man he was. Rather than being energetically and happily employed as the lease manager for Coastal Ford, he is unemployed. Rather than being the social outgoing man he was, he is socially withdrawn and has little or no interest in conversing about anything. Rather than being the patriarch supporting his family, he is dependent upon them in a way that corrodes his relationship with his wife and children. I find there is a real likelihood he will make progress in these areas so that his life is more enjoyable, however I do not think that will extend to re-employment.
 I assess general damages for the loss (the Plaintiff) has suffered consequent upon the collision for which the defendants are responsible at $200,000.