Reasons for judgemet were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damags for injuries sustained in multiple collisions.
In last week’s case (Bansi v. Pye) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions, the first in 2005, the second in 2008. The Plaintiff was faultless for both collisions focussing the trial on an assessment of damages. The Plaintiff suffered varoius injuries which were recovering when they were aggravated by the secod crash. These included various soft tissue injuries and headaches which were expected to last indefinatly and to limit the Plaintiff in his trade in construction management. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Mr. Justice Jenkins provided the following reasons:
 Also at page 7 of her report of January 11, 2011, Dr. Caillier listed “The Injuries of Issues Related to the MVA No. 2 dated April 25, 2008” as follows:
1. Cervicogenic headaches
2. Cervicogenic dizziness
3. Left hearing complaints. . .
4. Exacerbation of pre-existing symptoms involving the neck, upper back, and lower back regions.
5. Soft tissue musculoligamentous injury involving the neck, upper back, and posterior shoulder girdle and lower back region.
6. Further aggravation of degenerative changes within the lumbar spine.
7. Altered mood and anxiety.
8. Worsening of sleep disturbance.
9. Further decrease in ability to participate in the functional, recreational, and vocational activities of his choosing.
 Further at page 9, Dr. Caillier stated:
It is my opinion, given the chronicity of Mr. Bansi’s physical symptoms, both following that of the first motor vehicle accident as well as ongoing since the time of the second motor vehicle accident, the likelihood of him becoming pain-free is very poor…
 The two MVAs have had a significant negative impact on Mr. Bansi’s lifestyle and quality of life. Mr. Bansi had previously been very active and energetic whether in working on home renovations, exercising at the gym, cycling, washing family vehicles, participating in family events, services and prayers at the temple, working at household chores including maintenance of the gardens and yard, driving family members for appointments, shopping and much more.
 Since the MVAs, he has had considerable difficulty driving for any significant time, he no longer looks after the family gardens and yard, rarely socializes with family or at the temple, lacks motivation, spends more time alone in his suite at the family home, rarely takes care of his young niece and nephew, no longer goes on bike rides with his sister and has clearly had significant problems in carrying out his duties on construction sites. Not only has he had difficulty performing the work, his productivity is considerably impaired and what were simple physical tasks now take much longer. His employers have also noted his decrease in production and energy on the work site which I will address further in his claim for past loss of income and diminished earning capacity…
 …Considering that the injuries sustained by Mr. Bansi are not seriously challenged, his lower back injury is likely permanent, having to start his rehabilitation over again after the 2008 MVA will have an impact on his psyche, the difficulties he is having in performing previously simple tasks which were part of his job as a construction manager, the likelihood of him having to persevere with chronic pain in the future, and the resulting loss of enjoyment of life, I find an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages to be $75,000.