Skip to main content

Tag: Mr. Justice G.P. Weatherill

$70,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic, Non-Debilitating Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries following a vehicle collision.
In the recent case (Dosangh v. Xie) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision in 2013.  The Defendant admitted fault.  The crash caused soft-tissue injuries which lingered to the time of trial and had a guarded prognosis for full recovery.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 Mr. Justice Weatherill provided the following reasons:

[96]         I accept that the plaintiff continues to suffer the consequences of the Accident and that her condition has developed into one of chronic pain, the severity of which depends on her level of activity, particularly at work and at home. The more active she is and the more she pushes herself, the more significant her pain.

[97]         But, I also find that the plaintiff is moving in a positive direction in terms of her recovery despite her daughter’s and Ms. Hundal’s evidence to the contrary. My assessment is that they were both doing their best to help the plaintiff’s case and were perhaps not as objective as they could have been…

[101]     I accept that the plaintiff received soft tissue type injuries in the Accident that have not resolved. I accept that she continues to be in pain, although not the type of pain that is debilitating. The plaintiff is able to function at work and at home, but with ongoing limitations. She can perform the duties she did before the Accident, but in pain, some days worse than others.

[102]     The fact that the pain moves around her body depending on what she is doing, for example from the left shoulder to the right shoulder and back depending on if she is over-using an area, is, in my view, not overly significant. That is the nature of chronic pain, which could be non-organic and psychologically based.

[103]     I accept that the past four years since the Accident have taken a toll on the plaintiff. She struck me as somewhat of a perfectionist at work and at home and she has been unable to meet her own expectations. Her energy is reduced. That has no doubt affected her psychologically resulting in her depressed mood…

[108]     In the end, the assessment of general damages is based on the individual plaintiff and how the injuries have affected him or her physically, psychologically, vocationally, socially and recreationally. I have considered the plaintiff’s particular circumstances here, the fact the Accident occurred over 4 years ago, my assessment of the plaintiff as a witness, the chronicity of her pain together with the fact that she is improving but with a somewhat guarded prognosis. I am satisfied that with the continued counselling and therapies that I am ordering, she will continue to improve, will continue to function, but will experience ongoing pain to some degree.

[109]     I assess general damages at $70,000.

$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Lingering Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

Adding to this site’s archived soft tissue injury database, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages of $60,000 for lingering upper body soft tissue injuries.
In this week’s case (Olson v. Yelland) the plaintiff was involved in a 2012 rear end collision.  The Defendant admitted fault.  The Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to her neck, mid back and shoulders which continued to pose problems at the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Mr. Justice Weatherill provided the following reasons:

[117]     On the whole of the evidence, I accept that the plaintiff received soft tissue injuries to her neck, trapezius muscles and mid-back and headaches that continue to negatively affect her function to some degree.

[118]     I find that her pre-Accident lower back and left knee conditions would have significantly affected her ability to function at home and at work in any event of the Accident.

[119]     I find that prior to the Accident and in any event of the Accident, her competitive employability and ability to perform homemaking tasks had already been significantly compromised. The soft tissue injuries she received from the Accident were superimposed on her Original Position and made it more difficult for her to manage her day-to-day activities.

[120]     I find that the plaintiff has made significant recovery from the effects of the Accident within the past three years, but has been left with ongoing neck, mid-back, trapezius pain and related headaches.

[121]     The injuries the plaintiff is left with, and that I accept, are soft tissue injuries to her neck, mid-back and trapezius muscles. They have caused increased frequency and intensity of headaches.

[122]     I accept that these issues continue to affect her, and likely will continue for two to three more years. However, I find that the Accident related injuries pale in comparison to the unrelated issues she has with her low back and left knee…

[132]     In the circumstances, and following the principles set out in Stapley, I find that a reasonable award for general damages is $60,000. As will be seen below, within this sum I have included the plaintiff’s claim for reduced homemaking abilities.

Jury Verdict Deemed Perverse For Failing To Award Non-Pecuniary Damages

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Jury Trials.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, ordering a retrial following a ‘perverse’ jury finding.
In today’s case (Kalsi v. Gill) the Plaintiff was injured in a vehicle collision.  A jury found both parties equally to blame and after factoring the liability split awarded the Plaintiff $10,000 for past wage loss and special damages.  The Jury awarded nothing for non-pecuniary loss.  Mr. Justice Weatherill ordered a new trial and in doing so provided the following reasons:

[23]         While the court should strive to give effect to a jury’s verdict, it cannot do so where the jury’s verdict is internally in conflict.

[24]         In this case, it is apparent that the jury did not accept the plaintiff’s evidence as to her losses. Put bluntly, the jury did not believe her. It is obvious, however, that the jury found that the plaintiff was injured, at least to some degree, by the award for special damages of $8,000 and past loss of earnings of $12,000.

[25]         While the jury is the judge of issues such as credibility, it was not open to them, after making the findings as they did regarding special damages and past loss of wages, to fail to make any award for non-pecuniary damages (Balla). Such a result was inconsistent.

[26]         The basis of any tort action rests on a finding that the plaintiff suffered an injury. It is illogical to conclude that a plaintiff was injured and suffered past wage loss and special damages but did not sustain and pain, suffering, or loss of enjoyment, no matter how transient. (Balla, Stewart).

[27]         The issue, then, is whether this result necessitates a new trial (Rule 12-6(7)) or whether I can pronounce judgement on some of the claims and order a retrial on the balance (Rule 12-6(8)).

[28]         There is a clear difference in wording of the two rules that sheds some light on the issue. Rule 12-6(7) demands a retrial when either:

a)    a jury answers some but not all of the questions directed to it, or

b)    the jury’s answers are conflicting so that judgement cannot be pronounced on the findings.

[29]         Conversely, Rule 12-6(8) allows partial judgment when a jury’s answer entitles a party to judgement in respect of some but not all of the claims of relief. It does not contemplate partial judgment when the jury’s answer is conflicting.

[30]         Respecting the jury’s finding of liability between the parties for the collision, that question has been answered. There is nothing in the rest of the jury’s verdict that is inconsistent with it.

[31]         Respecting the jury’s finding on damages, an inconsistency exists. An award for special damages and past wage loss and no award for non-pecuniary damages have repeatedly been characterized in all the relevant case law as a “conflict” and an “inconsistent result”.

[32]         This conclusion is reinforced by Balla, Banks and Binnie v. Marsollier, 2001 BCCA 543. Re-trials were ordered in all three pursuant to Rule 41(2) (now Rule 12-6(7)). There was no mention of the potential application of Rule 41(3) (now Rule 12-6(8)).