BC Supreme Court awards damages for car crash but dismisses loss of earning capacity claims

The plaintiff continued to work full-time and received promotions despite his injuries

In a recent personal injury case, the BC Supreme Court found the defendant liable for rear-ending the plaintiff's vehicle but dismissed the plaintiff's claims for loss of earning capacity.

In Roa v Lagimodiere, 2024 BCSC 1269, Alex Lagimodiere's vehicle struck Jayant Rao's vehicle, leading to a legal dispute over negligence and damages.

Jayant Rao claimed that Lagimodiere's negligence caused him to suffer ongoing injuries, losses, and expenses. Lagimodiere denied liability but admitted causation for certain injuries if found negligent. He argued that $75,000 was appropriate for non-pecuniary damages and contested Rao’s claims for loss of earning capacity and future care costs.

The key issues were whether Lagimodiere's conduct deviated from reasonable care standards, the injuries caused by the accident, and the appropriate quantum for non-pecuniary damages, past and future earning capacity loss, and future care costs.

Rao, born in 1972 in Bangalore, India, worked as an environmental engineer in Canada before the accident. At the time of the accident, he was employed by Western Canada Exp Services Inc. (EXP) in Burnaby.

On the day of the incident, Rao stopped his vehicle at a crosswalk to allow a pedestrian to cross when Lagimodiere's car rear-ended him. Post-accident, Rao experienced neck and arm pain and was taken to Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Rao continued to suffer from chronic pain, headaches, and deconditioning. He underwent various treatments, including massage therapy, acupuncture, and active rehabilitation. Despite some recovery, he still experiences chronic pain and requires ongoing treatment.

The Supreme Court found Lagimodiere failed to maintain a safe distance and drive with due care, violating the Motor Vehicle Act. The court stated that rear-end collisions are prima facie evidence of the rear driver's failure to maintain a safe distance. Lagimodiere did not provide evidence to counter this presumption.

Non-pecuniary damages were awarded based on the nature, severity, and duration of Rao's pain, the impact on his life and work, and the disruption to his leisure activities. Although Rao's pain has persisted for years, it has not prevented him from working full-time. He has, however, curtailed some recreational and household activities due to the pain.

The court found insufficient evidence to support Rao's claims for past and future loss of earning capacity. Despite his injuries, Rao continued to work full-time and received promotions and salary increases. The court noted that chronic soft tissue pain is not expected to worsen significantly over time and that Rao has not demonstrated a real and substantial possibility of early retirement or job loss due to his injuries.

Ultimately, the BC Supreme Court awarded Jayant Rao $75,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $10,000 for future care costs, and $4,562.04 for special damages, holding Alex Lagimodiere liable for the rear-end collision and Rao's injuries.

Recent articles & video

Vote for Canadian Lawyer's Top Regional Ontario firms

Privacy and access authorities gather in Toronto to address emerging issues

Federal Court limits trademark to dining services, excludes sit-down and take-out offerings

Ontario Court of Appeal denies mother's bid to prevent child's return to Bangladesh

PEI Court of Appeal affirms property transfer to heir did not require subdivision approval

NS Court of Appeal affirms doctors' right to judicial review in dispute with health authority

Most Read Articles

Federal Court overturns study permit denial, citing unreasonable focus on applicant’s career plans

Ontario court rejects child protection agency’s ‘speculation and gossip’, orders child’s return

Pre-hearing request to review law firm's fees in personal injury case is premature: BC Supreme Court

SK Court of King’s Bench dismisses personal injury claim due to inordinate delay