The plaintiff sustained injuries after she was struck by a reversing farm utility vehicle
The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a $5.9 million trial court award to a plaintiff injured in a utility vehicle accident, dismissing the defendant’s appeal on liability, damages, and costs as unsupported by law or evidence.
The dispute in MacFarlane v. Gustafson, 2024 BCCA 400 arose when the plaintiff was struck by a reversing utility vehicle operated by the defendant on a farm property where the plaintiff resided with her partner. They lived there at reduced rent in exchange for performing maintenance work. The accident left the plaintiff with severe disabilities, including reliance on a wheelchair and the need for round-the-clock care.
The trial court had ruled that the defendant was fully responsible for the accident and rejected arguments that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. It awarded $5.4 million for damages, including future care costs, with an additional $493,000 for accommodative housing. The court also imposed double costs on the defendant, reasoning that a pre-trial settlement offer of $3.4 million made by the plaintiff should have been accepted.
The defendant appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in finding no contributory negligence, in calculating future care costs, and in awarding double costs. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s conclusions.
On the issue of contributory negligence, the appellate court agreed that it was not reasonably foreseeable to the plaintiff that the vehicle, which had stopped, would suddenly reverse. The court found no error in the trial judge’s determination that the plaintiff had acted reasonably under the circumstances.
The defendant’s challenge to the future care cost award was also dismissed. The trial judge had reduced the award by 10 percent, accounting for the possibility that the plaintiff’s partner might provide unpaid overnight care in the future. The appellate court concluded that this discount was based on evidence and aligned with legal principles governing future care awards, which require the court to consider contingencies realistically while ensuring fair compensation.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision to award double costs. It determined that the plaintiff’s settlement offer had been reasonable and that the defendant had sufficient opportunity to accept it before trial. Although the offer was later revoked, the court noted that it was appropriate for the trial judge to consider it when deciding costs, as it incentivized settlement and avoided unnecessary litigation. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, including the damages and costs awarded.
